MS NOW⁠95%

Gov. Gavin Newsom says Justice Department is investigating him and his wife ⁠48%

By Carol Leonnig⁠0% Erum Salam⁠76%

6/15/2026, 2:12:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Confirmation Bias, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 30.8% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 1,448 faulty-reasoning hits from 588 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (11,441 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.30% of the article peer group.

A federal prosecutor’s office based in Sacramento is investigating California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom’s wife for potential tax fraud and evasion, MS NOW has confirmed with two sources familiar with the probe. 
The probe stems back to early 2025, and is just one of several investigations that have encircled Newsom, his office and his family, the people said. 
The Justice Department’s public integrity section had been investigating for months potential crimes involving the tax filings of Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and had teamed up with the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of California, based in Sacramento, the people said. 
The outspoken governor announced the probe Monday, accusing President Donald Trump of again using the agency to target his foes. 
“Today, my wife & I joined Donald Trump’s hit list. 
He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us,” Newsom said on X. 
“We have nothing to hide.” 
“Today, my wife & I joined Donald Trump’s hit list. 
He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us. .. 
We have nothing to hide.” 
Gov. 
Gavin Newsom 
Newsom’s wife has been interviewed in recent weeks by federal investigators as part of the inquiry, which is focused on evidence indicating her personal use of nonprofit funds, one of the people briefed on the probe said. 
Newsom, a likely candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, said the Department of Justice has been trying to contact those close to him and uncover documents related to him. 
“In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees. 
Not because they found a crime. 
Because they are simply trying to find one,” Newsom said the a video message posted to his official website and X account, accusing Trump and his DOJ of “abusing the grand jury process.” 
“Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets. 
He’s coming after me because I’m considering running for president,” the two-term governor said. 
Other investigations have been eyeing Newsom and his operations, according to the sources. 
One person said Newsom’s chief of staff had been under investigative review in the Sacramento office. 
Additionally, the top political prosecutor in the Central District of California, Bill Essayli, had been pushing his prosecutors to investigate Newsom for months, that person said, but the status of that office’s work is unclear. 
“There have been several investigations in California involving Newsom and his wife, going on for more than a year,” said one person familiar with the California investigations. 
While Newsom said he is proud to join what he characterized as Trump’s “hit list” of political foes, he condemned what he called the targeting of his wife, whom Newsom described as “someone who has done nothing wrong, other than having the temerity to advocate for what she believes in.” 
“Donald Trump picked the wrong target,” Newsom said, adding that if investigators “really want to find corruption, look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” 
Newsom did not describe the nature of the agents’ questions. 
Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was arrested in November on federal charges of misusing public funds. 
She pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, filing a false tax return and making false statements to a federal agent. 
The White House referred MS NOW’s request for comment to the Justice Department. 
Lisa Rubin contributed to this report. 
This is a developing story. 
Please check back for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.6%Carol Leonnig: 6.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias15.6%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Carol Leonnig: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 8.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Carol Leonnig: 10.1%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.2%Carol Leonnig: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%Carol Leonnig: 20.8%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias24.3%This article: 15.6%Carol Leonnig: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias15.6%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 3.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Carol Leonnig: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Carol Leonnig: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 4.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.4%Carol Leonnig: 7.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority13.4%This article: 2.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%Carol Leonnig: 5.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 4.1%Carol Leonnig: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring4.1%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Carol Leonnig: 7.8%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 5.6%Carol Leonnig: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 8.2%Carol Leonnig: 2.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 30.8%Carol Leonnig: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof30.8%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.7%Carol Leonnig: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 8.5%Carol Leonnig: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman8.5%This article: 19.4%Carol Leonnig: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.4%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.4%Carol Leonnig: 7.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 6.1%Carol Leonnig: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection6.1%This article: 9.7%Carol Leonnig: 6.5%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice9.7%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.5%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.3%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 1.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carol Leonnig: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

588 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers55%attributed speech263writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 10 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 5 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 10 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 30 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 16 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 6 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 33 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBill Essayli • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 50 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageThe White House • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLisa Rubin • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gavin Newsom

100%flagged-word coverage
251 attributed words77% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.1 ptsWriter: 17.5%Gavin Newsom: 4.4%4.4%Quote-first Misdirection+14.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gavin Newsom: 14.3%14.3%

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.