California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing renewed scrutiny as questions continue to mount over his extensive use of so-called “behested payments,” a fundraising practice that critics argue has allowed powerful corporations, special interests, and wealthy donors to gain influence while operating outside traditional campaign finance rules.

The controversy comes as federal investigations involving both Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom continue to attract public attention, placing a spotlight on a fundraising system that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars during the governor’s political career.

At the center of the debate is a little-known California law that allows elected officials to solicit donations on behalf of charities, nonprofit organizations, government programs, and various public initiatives. These contributions, known as behested payments, are legal and are not considered campaign donations under state law.

However, critics argue that the system creates an enormous loophole that allows corporations and special interests with business before the state government to make large donations that may help build goodwill with elected officials.

According to California disclosure records, Newsom has reported more than $347 million in behested payments since 2011, a figure that dwarfs every other elected official in the state.

The number is particularly striking because it represents roughly 62 percent of all behested payments reported by California politicians over the last fifteen years.

State records show that California elected officials collectively directed approximately $556 million in behested contributions between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone was responsible for nearly two-thirds of that total.

The unprecedented scale of the fundraising has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.

“There’s no question that Newsom has used this privilege far more frequently than other elected officials,” political strategist Dan Schnur told the Orange County Register.

To put the numbers in perspective, former California Governor Jerry Brown reportedly generated approximately $35 million in behested payments during his tenure—only a fraction of what Newsom has accumulated.

The issue has become even more politically sensitive because some of the donations were directed toward organizations associated with Newsom’s wife.

Records indicate that approximately $4.8 million in behested contributions flowed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

Critics argue that even if the donations were legal and used for legitimate charitable purposes, the arrangement creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Sean McMorris of California Common Cause has been among those raising concerns about the practice.

“The public is not stupid,” McMorris said. “There’s a reason why these politicians primarily reach out only to people, entities and special interests who typically have interests before them.”

McMorris also described behested payments as a system that is “ripe for abuse,” noting that politicians can direct substantial amounts of money without triggering many of the restrictions that apply to campaign contributions.

Additional questions have emerged because several major donors later received favorable state actions, contracts, or policy decisions.

Blue Shield reportedly donated $20 million to initiatives championed by Newsom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Months later, the company received a no-bid contract connected to California’s vaccine distribution efforts.

Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before later receiving a significant role within California’s Medi-Cal healthcare system.

Meanwhile, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria reportedly donated millions to organizations associated with Newsom and causes connected to his wife while benefiting from state decisions involving tribal gaming matters.

Critics acknowledge that proving a direct quid pro quo arrangement is often difficult. However, they argue that the larger concern is the appearance created when major donors with business before the government make substantial contributions tied to a sitting governor.

Assemblyman David Tangipa recently voiced those concerns.

“While something may be legal, we all know that it’s wrong,” Tangipa said.

The controversy arrives at a particularly challenging time for Newsom.

The governor recently acknowledged that both he and Jennifer Siebel Newsom are subjects of multiple federal investigations, although few details have been publicly released regarding the nature or scope of those inquiries.

In addition, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine related to delayed disclosure filings involving certain behested payments.

Supporters of the governor argue that the funds have helped support worthwhile causes throughout California, including wildfire recovery efforts, healthcare programs, educational initiatives, workforce development projects, and disaster relief operations.

Critics, however, maintain that the destination of the money does not eliminate the ethical questions surrounding the process itself.

At the heart of the controversy is a simple question increasingly being asked by lawmakers, watchdog groups, and voters alike: Should elected officials be allowed to solicit unlimited donations from corporations, special interests, and organizations that have business before the government they oversee?

That question becomes even more significant, critics argue, when some of those donations ultimately benefit organizations connected to a politician’s family.

For years, behested payments remained a little-known feature of California politics. Today, they are emerging as a central issue in a broader debate over transparency, ethics, influence, and whether powerful political figures are operating under a different set of rules than the public they serve.

As scrutiny intensifies and federal investigations continue, the growing controversy surrounding Gavin Newsom’s fundraising practices is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama shared an unexpected story of heroism during a recent podcast appearance, revealing that she once saved a close friend from choking while dining out with her daughter, Malia Obama, and several younger companions.

The story emerged during an episode of *IMO*, the podcast Obama co-hosts with her brother, Craig Robinson. Guest Kevin Hart appeared on the program when the conversation turned to memorable life experiences and unexpected emergencies.

“I gave one of my girlfriends the Heimlich at dinner,” Obama recalled.

According to Obama, the incident occurred while she was dining with a longtime friend, her daughter Malia, and two of Malia’s friends. What began as a routine dinner quickly turned into a frightening medical emergency.

Michelle explained that she was already aware that her friend suffered from an esophageal condition that occasionally caused food to become lodged in her throat.

“We’re the same age, and you know, you start having swallowing problems. Things just stop,” Obama said.

“But [Michelle’s friend] had chewed her food; she had told me before that she had this esophageal issue where things will get stuck, so I knew that about her.”

The former first lady said her friend had finished eating and stood up from the table when the situation suddenly became serious.

“I think she coughed up something, and it got stuck in her throat. She was straining, and I said, ‘Are you OK?’” Obama recalled.

Recognizing the signs of choking, Obama immediately moved into action despite never having performed the Heimlich maneuver before.

“I had never done the Heimlich before, and it dislodged it. It just popped up right away,” she said.

The quick response apparently prevented what could have become a far more dangerous situation.

While Obama was praised for her calm reaction under pressure, she jokingly teased the younger members of the dinner party for failing to respond.

According to the former first lady, Malia and her friends largely froze as the emergency unfolded.

Michelle said the younger group “pushed away from the table” during the incident rather than stepping in to help.

Afterward, she confronted them about their lack of action.

“I looked at the kids, and I was like, ‘What were you all doing?’” Obama said.

“They were like, ‘You’re right, we were useless.’ They realized that that was a mother moment.”

Kevin Hart expressed admiration for Obama’s quick thinking and ability to react during a crisis.

“How good is your life to throw out a casual hero story of, yeah, I saved a life,” Hart said.

The story provided a lighter and more personal moment during a week in which the Obamas have remained in the public spotlight for other reasons.

Michelle and former President Barack Obama have been promoting the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, a major project years in the making that is expected to become a centerpiece of the former president’s legacy.

At the same time, Michelle Obama found herself unexpectedly drawn into another national conversation following comments made during a UFC event attended by President Donald Trump.

During a post-fight interview, UFC fighter Josh Hokit made controversial remarks about the former first lady while celebrating a victory inside the Octagon. The comments generated widespread reactions online and quickly became a topic of discussion across social media and cable news.

Neither Michelle Obama nor Barack Obama has publicly responded to the remarks.

Instead, the former first lady has continued focusing on public appearances, media interviews, and promotion of the presidential center.

For many listeners, however, the most memorable moment from her recent podcast appearance was not political at all. It was the image of a former first lady calmly stepping into action during a medical emergency while younger members of the group stood frozen in shock.

The story offered a reminder that even for some of the most recognizable figures in America, unexpected moments can arise without warning—and sometimes the person who saves the day is simply the one willing to act when everyone else hesitates.

President Donald Trump scored another legal and policy victory this week after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to tariffs imposed on Chinese imports during his first term, effectively leaving the trade measures in place and preserving a key component of his America First economic agenda.

The decision marks the latest chapter in a years-long legal battle over Trump’s efforts to confront what his administration described as decades of unfair trade practices by the Chinese Communist Party.

The case was brought by HMTX Industries and several other importers that sought to overturn tariffs first imposed in 2018. The businesses argued that the Trump administration exceeded its authority when it expanded duties on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the tariffs to stand. As is common practice, the justices did not provide an explanation for denying the petition.

The decision effectively leaves intact one of the signature economic policies of Trump’s first administration.

The tariffs were originally imposed after a lengthy federal investigation concluded that China engaged in unfair trade practices involving intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and other actions viewed as harmful to American businesses and workers.

At the time, the Trump administration argued that previous administrations had allowed China to exploit weaknesses in the global trading system while American manufacturers lost jobs and competitive advantages.

The tariffs initially targeted approximately $50 billion worth of Chinese imports but were later expanded after Beijing responded with retaliatory duties against American products.

The administration relied on Section 307 of the Trade Act to broaden the tariffs, arguing that the additional measures were necessary to address China’s continued trade practices and retaliation.

The importers challenged that expansion, arguing that Congress never intended to give the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative authority to engage in what they characterized as an ongoing trade war.

“But Congress nowhere gave [the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)] the vast power to engage in an open-ended trade war under that modest modification provision. Yet that is precisely what happened here,” the importers argued in court filings.

“That USTR’s ‘modification’ continues to impose billions of dollars in taxes on the American public each month is enough to warrant this court’s review,” they added.

Federal courts ultimately disagreed.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the Trump administration acted within its legal authority when implementing and expanding the tariffs. By refusing to review that ruling, the Supreme Court effectively endorsed allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in force.

The Biden administration had previously defended the tariffs in court, and Trump’s second administration continued arguing that the law clearly allows trade officials to modify tariff actions when necessary to address evolving trade concerns.

In a filing opposing Supreme Court review, government attorneys argued that modifications made under the Trade Act are lawful so long as they remain tied to addressing the same underlying trade issues.

“Accordingly, modifications imposed under Section 307(a) necessarily comport with the Act’s scheme because they are limited to actions appropriate to address the same problem that the original Section 301 actions addressed, as that problem has evolved over time,” the administration argued.

The ruling comes as Trump continues pursuing an aggressive trade agenda during his second term.

After returning to the White House in 2025, Trump sought to expand tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), arguing that America’s trade imbalances and foreign economic threats constituted a national security concern.

Although the Supreme Court later ruled that IEEPA does not clearly authorize presidential tariffs, the administration quickly began exploring alternative legal avenues to continue advancing its trade objectives.

One of those efforts is already underway.

Earlier this year, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced a series of new Section 301 investigations targeting major trading partners around the world. The investigations will examine issues including industrial overcapacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing policies, discrimination against American technology companies, digital services taxes, and environmental concerns tied to international shipping.

Supporters of Trump’s trade policies argue that the Supreme Court’s decision represents an important affirmation of the federal government’s ability to respond aggressively to unfair foreign trade practices.

For years, Trump has argued that America allowed its trading partners—particularly China—to take advantage of weak enforcement and one-sided agreements that harmed American workers and industries.

With the tariffs now surviving yet another legal challenge, one of the most significant pillars of Trump’s economic legacy remains firmly in place.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the tariffs will continue to influence U.S.-China trade relations while giving the administration additional momentum as it considers future trade actions aimed at protecting American manufacturing, technology, and national economic interests.