Gavin Newsom didn’t just climb the political ladder — he quietly built a hospitality empire at the same time, a fact that Forbes and other outlets laid out in recent reporting. As the governor of America’s largest state, he has maintained ownership stakes in a network of wineries, restaurants, bars and a hotel that started with the PlumpJack wine shop in San Francisco.
The PlumpJack portfolio is no mom-and-pop operation; it spans multiple Napa Valley estates, tasting rooms, restaurants and a ski-country inn, and industry valuations put the winery holdings alone in the hundreds of millions. What should alarm every taxpayer is that even a minority stake in those assets could be worth tens of millions to a sitting governor.
Worse, Newsom repeatedly refused to fully divest when he ascended to higher office, instead placing assets under family control and into blind trusts while continuing to exert influence over the brand that bears his fingerprints. That arrangement — family members running day-to-day operations while the governor keeps the money — reads like a textbook conflict of interest dressed up as convenience.
None of this happens in a vacuum: the PlumpJack story began with deep-pocketed friends backing Newsom’s ventures, most notably Gordon Getty, a family friend and heir whose early investments helped the company scale. For a politician who lectures Californians about fairness and economic sacrifice, having a billionaire benefactor underwrites his business interests while the rest of the state pays the price.
There are hard facts beyond the rhetoric — public records and reporting show property purchases, loans and LLC maneuvers that enriched Newsom’s holdings even as he tightened regulations affecting the same industries. Californians deserve more than vague assurances; they deserve clear, searchable disclosures that show what their leaders own and whether those holdings steer policy.
Patriots who still believe in honest governance should ask why a governor who talks about “caring for the people” keeps millions in private hospitality assets while signing rules that make life harder for small businesses. If Newsom truly believes in transparency and public trust, he will publish full, itemized disclosures and either divest or let voters decide whether this dual role is acceptable.
Finally, with Newsom’s name floated for higher office and him coyly entertaining presidential speculation, the national stage cannot accept half-answers and blind trusts that benefit insiders. Before any talk of a broader platform, the public has a right to the full accounting of how power and private profit have been mingled under his watch.
