Exclusive | Gavin Newsom spent $57K jetting to Europe on tab of wealthy donors, robotaxi firm ⁠72%

By Josh Koehn⁠0%

6/25/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.5% saturation with 265 hits. Analysis detected 1,463 faulty-reasoning hits from 535 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,130 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

Gov. 
Gavin Newsom’s ever-cozy relationship with wealthy donors and special interests helped fund $57,000 worth of flights, hotels and meals as he sought to raise his global profile and rub elbows with elites in Davos, Munich and London, according to records obtained by The Post. 
The overseas trips — which included appearances at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland in January, followed by the Munich Security Conference in Germany and a climate summit in London in mid-February — were financed through the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that exists to cover the governor's expenses. 
Newsom spent more than $26,500 on flights to and from Davos, nearly $6,600 on hotels during his stay and another $600 on food, according to information The Post obtained through a Public Records Act request. 
The trips to London and Munich remained top tier but a bit less swanky, as Newsom’s flights totaled just over $20,000 and he spent $2,809 on hotels and another $750 on food. 
The governor's office declined to provide security costs and itemized receipts for the Eurotrips. 
Newsom's unprecedented expansion of behested payments — a controversial practice that allows elected officials to act as an intermediary for unlimited contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, including those with business before the state — drew immediate criticism from Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton. 
“It’s just the latest example of the total corruption of our system of government in California,” Hilton told The Post. 
“The fact that something like behested payments even exists is an insult to every California taxpayer who expects their government to be working for them — not special interests.” 
One of the Newsom foundation's biggest recent donors was Zoox, Amazon's robotaxi company, which contributed $75,000 on Feb. 
24. 
The autonomous vehicle service is looking to join Waymo in winning state approvals that would allow Zoox to expand commercial robotaxi operations and eventually charge for rides in California. 
Zoox has given $155,000 total to the governor’s Protocol Foundation since July 2024, according to state records. 
Protocol Foundation’s most recent IRS filing shows it ended 2024 with just $7,790 in net assets, forcing it to replenish its coffers with a fresh round of donations from wealthy benefactors, politically connected nonprofits and corporations. 
Other recent donors included: philanthropist Susie Tompkins Buell, who gave $100,000; crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, who gave $10,000; and the dark money group New Venture Fund, which has contributed $150,000 since last October. 
Newsom, who is now the subject of a federal investigation, used his European jaunts to bolster his profile on the international stage — he is weighing a run for president in 2028 — while repeatedly casting California as a foil to President Trump. 
The governor traveled to Davos from Jan. 20 through Jan. 24 for the annual World Economic Forum, where he met with world leaders, CEOs and investors while delivering a series of speeches warning about Trump's return to the White House. 
“I should’ve brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders,” Newsom quipped in Davos, referencing merch he sells to help fund his federal political action committee, Campaign for Democracy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 3.9%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Josh Koehn: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.2%This article: 13.1%Josh Koehn: 5.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 5.4%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.3%Josh Koehn: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect27.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias14.8%This article: 49.5%Josh Koehn: 25.9%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias49.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.8%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Josh Koehn: 0.9%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Josh Koehn: 5.6%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 7.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.4%Josh Koehn: 3.2%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring5.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 2.2%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.4%Josh Koehn: 7.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion11.4%This article: 8.0%Josh Koehn: 2.4%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 18.1%Josh Koehn: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Josh Koehn: 1.6%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.7%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division6.7%This article: 14.4%Josh Koehn: 2.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.3%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.2%Josh Koehn: 2.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 9.7%Josh Koehn: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.7%This article: 32.0%Josh Koehn: 15.4%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice32.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Koehn: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 8.0%Josh Koehn: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.0%This article: 8.4%Josh Koehn: 3.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.4%This article: 6.0%Josh Koehn: 0.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.0%

535 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech454writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Hilton • 20 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Hilton • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gavin Newsom

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words40% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gavin Newsom: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gavin Newsom: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.7 ptsWriter: 37.7%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.