This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.
The Trump Department of Justice going after people who make the president mad or even sad is nothing new, in this dangerous age when the presidency is increasingly about placating the desires of the old man in the Oval Office.
Leticia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff. Most recently, E. Jean Carroll, who sued President Trump personally and won a huge settlement on her claim that he sexually assaulted her. Now, the Department of Justice is investigating her for potential perjury.
It would be easy to think of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice is now targeting his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, as just another addition to that list.
But this attack on Siebel Newsom (alleged attack, anyway — the Department of Justice has not confirmed she is a target) is something much darker in our slide into authoritarianism. While the details of what is being investigated are murky and the president hasn’t chimed in yet, it has all the appearances of the Trump administration seeking to stop a political rival who has a real shot at knocking MAGA out of the top office.
“It’s not just random or accidental that the wife of a major presidential candidate is being investigated,” Steven Levitsky, a professor of politics at Harvard University, told me Monday. “That’s the nature of selective prosecution and that is a pillar of authoritarian rule.”
Levitsky is an expert on authoritarian regimes, and how they take and keep power. His point that Newsom is a viable challenger may seem obvious — Newsom himself is already fundraising off of it. But this particular alleged investigation bears a moment of pause because it is not the regular decline of justice we have been witnessing to this moment.
Politics
Newsom said that in recent days, “federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” and have been “demanding records” in a quest to find any kind of wrongdoing by him or his wife.
“This is different,” he said. “This is forward-looking persecution.”
Until now, Levistky points out, Trump has screamed and hollered for the prosecution of those who have wronged him in the past, sometimes even the distant past. Yes, he’s disgraced the Department of Justice with the demand it function as his own personal hammer of retribution, even putting his own personal attorney, Todd Blanche, in charge when Pam Bondi wasn’t accommodating or successful enough at stomping perceived enemies and quashing the Epstein files.
But those prosecutions have largely been grievance-based, not aimed at keeping power.
Going after Siebel Newsom seems more like a forward-looking, preemptive strike targeting Newsom ahead of the 2028 election through every decent man’s Achilles’ heel, his family.
In fact, the right-wing media — which is closely tied to the whims of the White House — has been targeting Siebel Newsom for months.
In particular, Siebel Newsom has been attacked for her work as a documentary filmmaker who focuses on female empowerment and parsing how and why we have the gender norms that we do when it comes to masculinity and femininity. I’ll let you figure out how popular that is in MAGA world, where real women make sandwiches.
Conservative commentator Sean Hannity has gone after Siebel Newsom for saying she sometimes changes the gender of a book’s character from “he” to “she” when she’s reading to her children. Fox News has attacked her for daring to give her boys dolls to play with, leading some MAGA influencers to label her “psychotic” or “abusive.” Right-wing icon Megyn Kelly called her a “nutcase” for sharing the tragic story of her sister’s death when Siebel Newsom was 6.
And other media have focused on the fact that some of the films she has been involved with have been approved for use in California schools, leading to conspiracies that Newsom used his influence to force his wife’s “woke” agenda on kids, by which we are apparently talking about the liberal plagues of decency and inclusion.
Newsom’s office said that in recent weeks, relatives, friends and business associates of the family have been contacted by investigators from the FBI and IRS. Siebel Newsom also does work around online safety for children, but it seems likely that any attention would focus on these films, and related nonprofits, and the perennially popular MAGA boogeyman of schools forcing ideologies on kids. Throw in Siebel Newsom’s company making even a dollar, and the way the IRS can find problems with any tax return, and you’ve got about 10,000 hours of right-wing propaganda.
California
So whether the pressure to target Siebel Newsom came from the White House or not, Newsom’s announcement raises the troubling specter that this administration is getting more serious about remaining in control by kneecapping potential replacements before they grow too strong.
In his Monday video, Newsom urged Trump with mano a mano bravado to come after him as much as he wanted, but to leave his wife and family out of it. But I would not underestimate Siebel Newsom, who showed her strength when she testified against disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, laying out publicly a private, painful tale.
Siebel Newsom’s office told me she’s fine being part of any fight against Trump.
“There are clearly no boundaries to what Donald Trump will do to get his way or to challenge those who get in his way,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement.
The “governor and I will continue to speak truth to power because the American people deserve so much more.”
By coming out in advance of any official announcement of an investigation by the Department of Justice, Siebel Newsom and her husband may be able to take control of the narrative, something Trump detests.
That pushback, Levitsky said, is critical, not just for them, but more importantly for all of us. After last year, when so many institutions and individuals crumbled in the face of Trump’s power, the strength of our democracy increasingly depends on those with political capital standing up to him.
Coming out punching first does just that.
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
The column argues that the reported U.S. Department of Justice investigation into California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, marks an escalation from Trump-era score‑settling to a more ominous, “forward-looking” attempt to neutralize a potential 2028 presidential rival before a campaign even begins.[1][2][5]
It contends that this probe fits a pattern in which Trump’s Justice Department is deployed against perceived enemies — citing past clashes involving figures such as Letitia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff and E. Jean Carroll — but adds that targeting a candidate’s spouse crosses into a new, more explicitly authoritarian tactic aimed at retaining power rather than merely settling old grievances.[1][5]
Drawing on the analysis of Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky, the piece suggests that investigating the family members of an emerging opponent resembles “selective prosecution,” which the scholar describes as a core feature of authoritarian systems that use legal tools to intimidate or disable challengers rather than to neutrally enforce the law.
The article further stresses that, according to Newsom and media reporting, the investigation appears to center on Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit work and tax filings related to her documentary films and educational materials, with FBI and IRS inquiries reportedly focusing on groups tied to her advocacy on gender norms and women’s empowerment.[1][2][5]
Additionally, the column frames the probe as the culmination of a sustained right‑wing media campaign portraying Siebel Newsom as a “woke” culture warrior indoctrinating children, highlighting attacks on her for changing pronouns in children’s books, encouraging her sons to play with dolls, and promoting films on gender and inclusion that have been approved for use in some California schools.[1]
The piece suggests that whether or not the White House directly ordered the inquiry, the timing and focus strongly imply a political motive: undermining a prominent Trump critic who has openly weighed a presidential bid, with Newsom himself publicly accusing Trump of directing the Justice Department to “find a crime” against him and his wife because of that potential challenge.[2][3][5]
Finally, the article argues that Newsom and Siebel Newsom chose to go public early in order to “seize the narrative,” defy intimidation, and model resistance for other political figures, asserting that the resilience of American democracy increasingly depends on officials with a platform refusing to acquiesce when Trump uses state power or its appearance to punish critics.[1][5]
In contrast, some coverage emphasizes that, beyond Newsom’s public statements, the scope and basis of the investigation remain unclear, and federal officials have not publicly confirmed details or political motives, underscoring that there is not yet independent evidence that the probe is being driven by the White House as opposed to career prosecutors or standard investigative processes.[2][5]
Moreover, neutral reporting from outlets such as PBS and CNN has stressed the factual core — that Newsom claims he and his wife are under Justice Department scrutiny and that at least one inquiry involves her finances — without endorsing the characterization of the investigation as authoritarian retaliation, presenting the situation more as an unresolved question than as proof of a constitutional crisis.[2][4][5]
Some critics of Newsom, particularly in conservative media, have for years questioned Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit operations and the donor networks around her documentary and advocacy work, arguing that high‑profile political families should face robust scrutiny over possible conflicts of interest, preferential access, or tax compliance rather than being treated as presumptively above investigation.[1]
Relatedly, right‑leaning commentators who have attacked Siebel Newsom’s films and curriculum materials as “woke” or ideologically driven have framed their objections as part of a broader concern that liberal elites are using schools and public platforms to impose controversial views on gender and sexuality, and may therefore see any federal review of the associated nonprofits or tax filings as warranted oversight rather than persecution.[1]
In addition, defenders of Trump’s prior approach to the Justice Department have often argued in other contexts that critics mislabel legitimate law‑enforcement actions as “authoritarian,” contending that political figures should not be shielded from investigation simply because they are rivals of the president, and that allegations of selective prosecution require more than circumstantial evidence about timing or media rhetoric to be substantiated.
Finally, some legal analysts and institutionalists have voiced broader caution, noting in similar controversies that American presidents have long exerted informal influence over the Justice Department, and arguing that while politicization is a serious concern, equating every contested probe with authoritarianism risks diluting the term and obscuring the need for concrete proof of direct interference or legally improper orders.[5]
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Follow Us
Anita Chabria is a California columnist for the Los Angeles Times, based in Sacramento. Before joining The Times, she worked for the Sacramento Bee as a member of its statewide investigative team and previously covered criminal justice and City Hall. Follow her on Bluesky at anitachabria.bsky.social and on X at @anitachabria.
World & Nation
Politics
World & Nation
Politics
It turns out you can burn down a neighborhood and not destroy a community. We’ve seen evidence of this all across L.A. and so we will head back to one neighborhood that’s a good example of that bond: West Poppyfields Drive in Altadena.
Today we discuss one of the pivotal events of the 1960s: the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Though the gunman was caught at the scene, confessed at trial, and even bragged about the shooting, his motives have largely been forgotten.
For this episode of De Los Podcast, hosts Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito sit down with Sen Dog, founding member and rapper of Cypress Hill — one of the first Latino hip-hop groups to break into the American mainstream.
California
California
California
California
Subscribe for unlimited access
Site Map
Follow Us
MORE FROM THE L.A. TIMES
Leave a Reply