With Presidential Ambitions, Gavin Newsom’s $1.1 Billion Capitol Problem Becomes Harder to Ignore

This is the second part of a two-part series looking at the controversy around California’s State Capitol Annex project. The first part covered the project’s rising costs, secrecy, and lack of transparency. You can read it here [LINK].

Usually, our afternoon content is only for paid subscribers, but we’re making this special two-part series available to everyone.

🕒 6-min

When Statehouse Secrecy Meets National Ambition

As Gavin Newsom becomes more prominent nationally and talk about his presidential ambitions grows, people are looking at his record differently. What used to seem like a local issue now feels like a test of how leaders use power when they face tough questions. California’s unresolved State Capitol Annex project, last budgeted at $1.1 billion with no new estimate released, is no longer just a Sacramento issue. It matters more now because it shows how important decisions are made.

Most of what the public knows about the project’s secrecy, how decisions are made, and the unanswered questions comes from ongoing investigative reporting by KCRA political director Ashley Zavala.

Secrecy Made Physical

In Part One, we looked at how lawmakers and the governor’s office refused to share basic information about the cost of the large Capitol Annex project. This lack of transparency isn’t just about budgets or contracts—it’s built into the project’s design.

The new Capitol complex plans include “secure” corridors, added after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, to allow lawmakers to move through the building without being seen by the public or the press. When asked how much these security measures cost, legislative officials said they have no records that break down those expenses within the overall project.

A Capitol Without Witnesses

It’s also troubling that lawmakers have withheld information about press access inside the new building. When journalists requested records on where reporters would work, where they would watch proceedings, and how they would reach lawmakers in the Capitol Annex, legislative officials refused, citing a public-interest exemption.

That claim should stop readers cold.

Press access isn’t just a favor from officials—it’s how the public finds out what its government is doing. This refusal matters even more because the Capitol Annex will hold not only legislators, but also the governor’s office and other statewide officials. Decisions made there will affect California policy for years to come.

The Fight Over the West Steps

Nowhere is the tension between public access and institutional convenience clearer than in the fight over the Capitol’s west steps. For generations, the west steps and plaza have served as a primary site for protests, rallies, and public assembly. Critics of the Annex project have repeatedly sought written guarantees that these spaces will be preserved. Those guarantees have not been provided.

Instead, lawmakers have moved forward with design plans that could change these public areas, while saying that concerns are exaggerated. When asked for written proof, they refused. When lawsuits threatened to slow the project, lawmakers changed the state law.

Exempting Themselves

Perhaps the most revealing moment in the Capitol Annex saga came when lawmakers exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act. Democratic leaders routinely defend CEQA as essential for public participation. Yet when it became an obstacle here, lawmakers advanced SB 174 to exempt the project, and Governor Newsom signed it — clearing the way for construction to proceed and ending litigation.

The result was clear: review and public input were still required for others, but became optional for those making the rules. That decision eliminated one of the last means of forcing disclosure of the project’s scope, cost, and design.

The Pattern Is Clear

Looking at both parts of this series, the pattern is clear. What started as a routine modernization project has become a reminder of how public oversight fades when leaders view scrutiny as a problem. Costs are still unclear, even though hundreds of millions have already been spent. A small group makes key decisions mostly out of public view. Non-disclosure agreements hide basic information. Public records requests are delayed or denied. Oversight tools were pushed aside when they became inconvenient.

These aren’t just one-off mistakes. They show a clear pattern.

So, Does It Matter?

This matters because it illustrates what unchecked power looks like.

The Capitol Annex project reveals a government comfortable making billion-dollar decisions in private, restricting access by design, and rewriting rules when accountability becomes uncomfortable. As Gavin Newsom continues to position himself as a national leader — a frequent presence on cable news and a potential presidential contender — this record will not remain a local footnote. National campaigns invite national scrutiny, and presidential ambitions carry expectations of openness and credibility.

California’s State Capitol is supposed to stand for self-government. A project that shuts out the public, hides what’s happening, and keeps basic information secret sends the opposite message. If this is how power is used at home, it’s fair to ask how it would be used on a bigger stage. These questions are hard to ignore when national debates focus on how leaders act. It’s tough for Governor Newsom to criticize controversial White House projects under Donald Trump when his own administration is linked to a billion-dollar State Capitol project marked by secrecy and unanswered questions.

This is just one more scandal waiting to be played out on the national stage.