As the Department of Justice probes Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife on multiple fronts, a fresh scandal involving one of his closest former aides is raising new questions about the company he kept in Sacramento.

Dana Williamson, who led Newsom’s office as chief of staff from late 2022 to early 2025, pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy to loot a congressional campaign account tied to Xavier Becerra — the former Biden cabinet secretary now leading the Democratic field to replace Newsom as California governor.

But that was only part of Williamson’s legal troubles. She also admitted to filing false tax returns and lying to the FBI about her official dealings involving former client Activision Blizzard — the video game giant at the center of one of California’s most high-profile workplace discrimination cases.

Williamson’s guilty plea — and a highly anticipated sentencing hearing next month — has cast a glaring spotlight on Newsom, who this week accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against him as he weighs a run for president in 2028.

A source familiar with the federal probes told The California Post that Williamson’s actions could present a particular challenge for the governor, who curiously issued a statement honoring “her insight, tenacity, and big heart” despite knowing she was under FBI investigation when she left his office in late 2024.

The investigation into Williamson dates back to 2022, a source told The Post, and other outlets have reported that the original investigation stemmed from whistleblower complaints here in California. Investigators, meanwhile, have increasingly focused on Newsom’s orbit over the past year. 

Williamson’s conduct appears to be one facet of a broader inquiry that includes scrutiny of Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s taxes and business arrangements and members of the governor’s staff.

Neither Newsom nor his wife have been charged with any wrongdoing.

---

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, dismissed the federal inquiry Friday as a politically motivated effort to damage the governor ahead of a potential White House run.

“What we do know is that federal investigators have been contacting family friends, donors, former employees and associates, subpoenaing records and asking questions about the governor’s finances, organizations connected to the first partner, and even deeply personal family matters,” Gallegos told The Post in an email.

She added that the governor’s office has not been told specifically what the Justice Department is investigating and accused federal authorities of pursuing “chasing ghosts and launching investigations based on conspiracy theories.”

“The issue isn’t people or organizations,” Gallegos said. “The issue is that after failing to establish wrongdoing by the governor in their original line of inquiry, investigators appear to be casting an ever-wider net in search of something they can use.”

Gallegos also sought to distance Newsom from Williamson’s criminal case, saying the feds offered her a “deal,” but “the governor never committed a crime, so there was nothing for her to ‘offer.'”

Legal experts say the public evidence available so far leaves open two competing possibilities: Williamson’s crimes are politically embarrassing but legally irrelevant for Newsom, or investigators believe her conduct leads to broader wrongdoing.

Paul DeGroot, a former chief prosecutor who oversaw public corruption cases in Passaic County, New Jersey, told The Post that federal prosecutors rarely target sitting governors unless they believe they can ultimately prove their case at trial.

“A federal or state prosecutor will only indict a government official, especially a high-ranking one, if the prosecutor believes they will be able to prove a crime has occurred beyond a reasonable doubt,” DeGroot said.

“As such, you rarely see instances of a prosecutor seeking to indict a governor.”

He said Williamson’s guilty plea puts Newsom in a difficult position because defendants facing significant prison time often cooperate with investigators.

“Frequently, the only realistic option an individual has to stay out of jail is to cooperate with law enforcement against others,” DeGroot said.

“A target of an investigation should always be concerned about a cooperating witness previously in their inner circle because of the witness’s desperation to avoid prison time and ability to attribute statements and actions to the target.”

At the same time, DeGroot added, “the best defense is a good offense.”

“Governor Newsom need look no further than President Trump about how a prosecution framed as being politically motivated can actually help the defendant politician at the polls.”

Complicating the governor’s narrative is the fact that some of the crimes at the center of Williamson’s plea deal occurred during her time with the Newsom administration.

In 2021, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing – now the Civil Rights Department – sued Activision Blizzard, alleging the video game giant fostered a pervasive “frat boy” culture where women faced sexual harassment, unequal pay and retaliation.

The lawsuit alleged women were steered into lower-paying roles, denied promotions and punished for pregnancy and motherhood. 

One woman was allegedly told she could not be promoted because she might “get pregnant and like being a mom too much,” while another killed herself during a business trip with a male supervisor who had brought sex toys and lubricant.

The state’s chief counsel Janette Wipper was fired after raising concerns about political interference, while her deputy, Melanie Proctor, resigned and alleged the governor’s office was “mimicking the interests of Activision’s counsel.”

Newsom’s office denied the allegations.

The controversy intensified after Activision board member Casey Wasserman — the media mogul and chair of the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles — donated $100,000 to Newsom’s anti-recall campaign weeks after the lawsuit was filed.

Gallegos confirmed to The Post that federal investigators have spent time examining allegations related to Activision Blizzard, but she said nothing was found and any suggestion that Newsom or the office “tilted the outcome of a case to benefit Activision is absurd on its face.”

She noted that Activision’s then-CEO, Bobby Kotick, “spent years opposing the governor politically,” donating roughly $1 million to campaigns against Newsom.

“Instead of closing the book, investigators appear to have moved on to the next conspiracy theories in search of something they can use,” Gallegos said. “That’s the pattern we’re seeing throughout this investigation.”

California eventually agreed to a $54 million settlement with Activision Blizzard in late 2023 — but not before dramatically scaling back its blockbuster case.

As part of the deal, the state dropped its sexual harassment claim. The consent decree also acknowledged that neither a court nor an independent investigation found evidence of systemic or widespread sexual harassment at the gaming giant.

An FBI wiretap in June 2024 would document how Williamson planned to quash a public records request from Proctor seeking to bring details around the Activision case to light. Williamson was placed on leave months later after informing the governor’s office she was under federal investigation.

Her attorney, former US Attorney McGregor Scott, has characterized the broader probe as politically motivated and said Williamson declined to provide investigators with information about Newsom because she had none to offer. Scott did not respond to request for comment Friday.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the evidence made public so far does not establish criminal liability for the governor.

“At this point,” Levinson said, “I can’t tell whether this is merely embarrassing for him because he employed somebody who engaged in federal criminal behavior, or whether there’s more of a connection than anybody knows about.”