The rumor emerged after Vanity Fair published a first-person essay by Ruby Rippey detailing her affair with Gavin Newsom. Some social media users claimed that Rippey had revealed the affair for the first time in 2026. This is false. Newsom publicly acknowledged the affair in 2007, telling reporters that everything you heard and read is true.
What the 2026 Vanity Fair essay actually did was something more complicated than a first revelation. Ruby Rippey, Newsom's appointments secretary while he was San Francisco's mayor, detailed in Vanity Fair her 2005 affair with Newsom. She decided to speak out after reading Newsom's memoir, in which he acknowledged the affair in a single paragraph, saying it prompted her to reclaim a story that in her view had been told almost exclusively through his lens.
The specific dispute is about whose version of events is accurate. Rippey disputes Newsom's portrayal of the affair as a brief episode, writing that the relationship spanned months and included repeated late-night meetings. She also denies Newsom's claim that he confessed to Tourk, writing that she was the one who told her husband.
Rippey's most pointed observation cuts to the heart of power dynamics in the workplace. She wrote that while Newsom's version may be technically defensible, it leaves readers with the impression that he, rather than she, was the first to tell Tourk about the affair. She wrote: "It reads to me at least as a version of events that gives him credit for something I had already done."
And her most philosophically significant line: "Power does not need to coerce. It only needs to exist."
That is not a claim of assault. It is a claim about the specific ethical responsibility that comes with being a supervisor in a position of authority over the person you enter a relationship with. A spokesperson for Newsom said the governor had publicly acknowledged his role in the affair and apologised for his actions, and out of respect for everyone involved, does not have anything further to add.
The fact-check of the 2026 story is therefore layered. The affair is confirmed and has been confirmed since 2007. The dispute over who confessed to Tourk first is unresolved and genuinely disputed. The power dynamics question is a matter of legitimate moral analysis rather than false claim. Gavin newsome cannot claim the essay fabricated events. He can, and does, dispute the specific narrative framing. Both things are simultaneously true.
The French Laundry Incident: The Hypocrisy That Could Not Be Unseen
The French Laundry incident is not contested. Governor newsom himself apologised for it. In November 2020, during a period when California was under some of the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in the country, Newsom attended a birthday dinner for a lobbyist at the French Laundry, an exclusive Napa Valley restaurant, with a group of people from multiple households, without masks, indoors.
The restrictions his administration had imposed on Californians were not being observed by the governor who imposed them. The hypocrisy was visible, documented in photographs, and impossible to explain away. He apologised, saying he should have modelled better behaviour and that he made a bad mistake.
The fact-check of the French Laundry incident is simple: it happened exactly as reported. The political damage it caused was severe and lasting. In 2021, California held a gubernatorial recall election driven substantially by Republican frustration with his pandemic management. He survived the recall comfortably, winning by more than 60 percent, but the French Laundry photograph became the specific image that opponents of gavin newsome deployed in every subsequent political argument about his fitness for higher office.
What the fact-check cannot determine is whether the dinner reflected a broader pattern of rules-for-thee-not-for-me governance or whether it was the isolated lapse that Newsom characterised it as. Reasonable people have reached different conclusions.
The EDD Unemployment Fraud: $20 Billion Lost on His Watch
The Employment Development Department unemployment fraud scandal is the most financially significant controversy of the Newsom governorship, and its scale is genuinely staggering. California is a cash machine. The state collects some of the country's highest income, business, and fuel taxes, and now spends more than $300 billion per year. And yet, everywhere you look, California seems to be falling apart.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, California's EDD paid out an estimated $20 billion or more in fraudulent unemployment claims. The EDD allegedly paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims in prisoners' names, including those of at least 133 inmates on death row. International fraud networks, domestic criminals, and opportunists of every description exploited the EDD's inadequate verification systems to extract money that was intended for Californians who had genuinely lost their jobs.
FACT-CHECK: Newsom did not create the EDD's systemic vulnerabilities, which predated his governorship. However, his administration's decision to prioritise speed of payment over verification during the pandemic created the specific operational environment that enabled fraud on this scale. The California State Auditor's report documented the failures comprehensively and placed institutional responsibility squarely on the EDD under his administration's oversight.
What is factually disputed: Claims that Newsom personally directed the fraudulent payments are false. Claims that his administration was warned about fraud vulnerabilities and failed to act adequately are supported by audit evidence. The distinction matters for honest accountability.
Federal DOJ Inquiries: What Was and Was Not Investigated
The question of what gavin newsom specifically faced in terms of federal DOJ inquiry requires careful factual handling, because the space between investigated and charged is enormous and routinely collapsed in political commentary.
Federal scrutiny of California contracting, COVID relief spending, and specific infrastructure projects has been documented in reporting. Whether any inquiry was ever specifically directed at Newsom personally, rather than at California agencies and contractors, is a distinction that factual reporting requires maintaining. Conflating departmental scrutiny with personal criminal investigation is the specific category of factual error that damages honest political accountability.
VERDICT: Reporting on DOJ inquiries into California government operations during the Newsom administration is accurate. Reporting that presents those inquiries as personal criminal investigations of the governor newsom requires specific sourcing whose strength varies significantly across different accounts.
State Policy and Cost of Living: The Numbers That Do Not Lie
The cost of living criticism of the Newsom governorship rests on data that is not in dispute. California has the highest income tax rate in the United States. Its housing costs have made homeownership functionally inaccessible for median-income workers in its major cities. Its homelessness crisis is the largest in the country by absolute numbers. Its exodus of residents to lower-cost states accelerated during his tenure.
These are policy failures whose causes are complex and whose remedies have been politically contested throughout his governorship. Newsom has made substantial policy efforts on housing, including SB 9 and SB 10 which increased housing density by right across the state. He has signed clean energy legislation that genuinely leads the country. He has expanded healthcare coverage.
WHAT IS FACTUAL: California's cost of living is the highest in the nation. California's housing crisis is among the worst in the developed world. These conditions worsened during Newsom's governorship regardless of the specific policy interventions he pursued.
WHAT IS DISPUTED: Whether alternative policy approaches would have produced better outcomes, and whether Newsom's specific policy decisions were the primary driver of the crisis or the insufficient response to a pre-existing structural problem, are questions whose honest answers are more complex than either his supporters or critics typically acknowledge.
The Governor Who Is Still Standing: The Overcoming
Here is what the complete factual portrait shows: Gavin newsome has faced the specific category of political damage that ends careers in most jurisdictions and has survived every instance. He survived the 2007 affair revelation. He survived the French Laundry photograph. He survived the recall election. He survived the EDD fraud scandal. He survived the DOJ scrutiny. He survived the Ruby Rippey Vanity Fair essay.
He survived them not through luck but through the specific political gifts that his opponents most resent him for: genuine policy sophistication, exceptional fundraising capacity, and the specific communication ability that allows him to acknowledge problems while maintaining the forward momentum of someone who has already moved past the crisis before the political obituary writers have finished typing.
His California legacy is genuinely mixed. The clean energy legislation is real. The healthcare expansion is real. The housing density reforms are real and impactful even if insufficient. The cost of living crisis is real. The EDD fraud is real. The French Laundry photograph is real.
What is also real is that governor newsom remains one of the most formidable political figures in the Democratic Party's 2028 field, precisely because the controversies that were supposed to finish him have not. Whether that resilience reflects good character, good luck, good politics, or some mixture of all three is the specific question that California voters and, increasingly, national Democratic primary voters are being asked to answer.
Conclusion: The Fact-Check Governor
The honest fact-check of Gavin Newsom's record produces a picture that is neither the hero portrait his supporters prefer nor the fraud portrait his critics insist upon. It is a politician whose personal conduct in 2005 reflected a serious ethical failure of power and trust. Whose pandemic behaviour in 2020 reflected the specific hypocrisy of a leader who had not yet understood that his own conduct had to match the standards he was imposing on others. Whose administration oversaw one of the most expensive government fraud failures in American state history. Whose state policy record is genuinely mixed in ways that resist simple characterisation.
And who, having faced all of that, remains standing. The question of what has gavin newsom done for California deserves the same complete honest answer that every other question about his record requires: some things well, some things poorly, some things adequately, and some things not at all. That is not an exoneration. It is a fact-check. And in 2026, with a presidential run on the horizon, the distinction between the two may be the most important political judgment California and the country are being asked to make about a man who has survived everything and is betting that survival itself is the qualification.
For Relevant Content Read more...