Diaper controversy: Newsom under fire for multimillion-dollar contract tied to his wife

Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing a growing political firestorm after it was revealed that the state of California poured nearly $20 million into a free diaper distribution program run by a nonprofit closely tied to the Newsom family's political and personal circle.

The controversy revolves around the “Golden State Start” initiative, touted by the state administration as a pioneering program aimed at delivering free diapers to all newborns in California hospitals. However, conservative critics and political opponents claim that the project could represent a case of political favoritism, influence peddling and questionable use of public funds.

A social program turned political scandal

The initiative was announced before Mother's Day as a partnership between the state of California and Baby2Baby, a Los Angeles-based charity dedicated to distributing basic commodities to low-income children and families.

According to figures released by the state $7.4 million has already been approved, and another $12.5 million is proposed for the 2026-2027 budget.

In total, the program could exceed $20 million funded with taxpayer money.

The Newsom administration has championed the project as "the nation's first program to provide free diapers to every newborn baby in California."

But initial enthusiasm quickly gave way to uncomfortable questions about how the deal was awarded and who actually benefits from it.

The link to the governor's wife

The center of the controversy involves Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the governor's wife and founder of the California Partners Project, an organization focused on promoting women's leadership and gender equity.

The controversy arises because Norah Weinstein, co-executive director of Baby2Baby, also serves on the board of Siebel Newsom's California Partners Project.

In the eyes of critics, that relationship evidences a troubling overlap between political networks, nonprofits, state funding, and personal connections from the governor's inner circle.

"Why does it cost so much?": Criticism of public funds

One of the strongest attacks came from Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for California governor and former conservative political adviser.

Hilton sharply questioned the cost of the program:

"If you take the number of diapers they’re planning to send out and the amount of money that he’s spending on it, it’s 50 cents for each one, which is like 100 times more expensive if you just bought them in Costco." He added, "But where's the money coming from? Us."

The Republican further accused Newsom of using state programs to benefit allies and networks with ties to Democratic political power.

"Instead of taking our money, putting into some scheme that benefits their friends and cronies, why don’t they let us just keep more of our money in the first place so we can decide how to spend our money?" he asked.

A web of political connections under the microscope

The criticism also points to the political ties of other figures connected to Baby2Baby.

Kelly Sawyer Patricof, another of the organization's executive directors, is married to film producer Jamie Patricof. In turn, Alan Patricof, Jamie's father, is a well-known investor and historic donor to the Democratic Party, with connections dating back to the Clinton era.

Although there is no public evidence of illegality, opponents believe the case reflects how politically connected nonprofits continue to receive multimillion-dollar state contracts and funding.

Where does philanthropy end and political influence begin?

To conservative critics, the case represents another example of public contracts awarded to networks with links to power, nonprofits functioning as political extensions, and a lack of transparency in the use of state money.

Meanwhile, defenders of the program maintain that the main objective remains to help needy families and ensure that all newborns have access to essential commodities.

The truth is that, at a time of high political and economic tension in California, the diaper program that sought to become a symbol of social support ended up becoming a new battle over government ethics, political influence and management of taxpayers' money.