Newsom Scandal Resurfaces Amid Potential 2028 Presidential Run
As speculation grows over whether California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom might pursue a presidential run in 2028, one of his most controversial past scandals is resurfacing on social media this holiday season.
In 2007, while serving as mayor of San Francisco, Newsom acknowledged an affair with Ruby Rippey Gibney, the wife of his close friend and campaign manager, Alex Tourk. The disclosure shocked the Bay Area political establishment, strained personal and professional relationships, and threatened to derail his career at the time.
At the time, Newsom made a televised admission and apology.
“I want to make it clear that everything you’ve heard and read is true,” he said. “I am deeply sorry about that. I’ve hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, and his friends and family. That is something I have to live with.”
His apology went beyond damage to personal relationships and extended to San Fran residents.
“I’m also sorry that I’ve let the people of San Francisco down,” he said. “They expect a lot of their mayor… I am committed to restoring their trust and confidence and will work very hard in the upcoming months to make sure that the business of running the city is framed appropriately.”
The fallout was immediate.
Tourk, one of Newsom’s closest allies, resigned as the mayor’s chief of staff, and the scandal triggered broader questions about trust, responsibility, and the overlap between personal judgment and public duty.
Newsom’s public apology also did little to blunt the backlash. The controversy dominated news coverage, became fodder for late-night comedians, and gave opponents fresh ammunition to question his integrity. For many voters, the affair became shorthand for doubts about his character.
Despite the political damage, Newsom weathered the storm and went on to advance his career, ultimately becoming governor of California. Still, the episode remains a lasting blemish that critics argue could resurface if he seeks national office.
In recent years, as the #MeToo movement reshaped political discourse, some observers have raised questions about whether the relationship — which involved a subordinate — could be viewed as workplace misconduct.
Gibney, however, has publicly defended Newsom. “To be clear, I fully support the Me Too movement,” she wrote on Facebook several years later. “In this particular instance, however, I am doubtful that it applies.”
Gibney acknowledged that she was a subordinate but emphasized that the responsibility for the relationship rested with her own choices, seeking to deflect the most serious allegations from Newsom.
Still, the controversy has never fully faded, resurfacing whenever Newsom’s political profile rises on the national stage. A polished speaker with significant fundraising ability, he is widely viewed as a potential contender in 2028. Yet as speculation builds, so too do reminders of his past.
If he decides to run, the challenge will be clear: Newsom will need to highlight his record as governor while contending with a scandal that has continued to dog him for nearly two decades.
Newsom recently appeared to sign off on physical violence against supporters of President Donald Trump, if not Republicans in general, in an unhinged rant during a podcast.
The governor’s remarks come as he struggles to contain his anger over Texas’ mid-decade redistricting effort, which aims to produce another five GOP congressional seats, something he has vowed to oppose by redistricting seats in California despite an already outsized Democratic congressional delegation.
“This is radical rigging of a midterm election,” Newsom fumed. “Destroying, vandalizing this democracy, the rule of law,” he claimed on “The Siren” podcast.
“So, I’m sorry, I know some people’s sensibilities. I respect and appreciate that. But right now, with all due respect, we’re walking down a damn different path,” he continued. “We’re fighting fire with fire, and we’re gonna punch these sons of b****es in the mouth.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
