Headline Claims Gavin Newsom Affair Exposed — Woman Goes Public With Photos
Ruby Rippey, a former aide to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, has offered her most detailed public account of the affair the two had while Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, revisiting the scandal as speculation continues about his political future beyond the governor’s office.
In a first-person essay published by Vanity Fair in July 2026, Rippey described a months-long relationship marked by heavy drinking, secret meetings and the collapse of her marriage to Alex Tourk, who at the time was a senior Newsom aide and political confidant.
Rippey had previously addressed the affair publicly in 2018, but her new account provides substantially more detail about the relationship, her struggles with alcohol and the consequences that followed.
She also said that Kamala Harris, then the San Francisco district attorney, called her after the affair became public in 2007 as Rippey was considering whether to speak publicly and had received an offer to write a memoir.
According to Rippey, Harris told her: “I wouldn’t say anything right now, Ruby. Just pause. More time will give you better perspective.”
Rippey wrote that the advice proved valuable while she was newly sober and dealing with the fallout from the scandal. Representatives for Harris did not immediately comment on Rippey’s account when it was published.
The affair began in 2005, when Rippey worked in Newsom’s office and her then-husband worked closely with the mayor. Earlier that year, Newsom and his first wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, had filed for divorce.
Rippey recalled that the boundaries between her and Newsom began to change after a colleague’s wedding over the Fourth of July weekend in 2005, where she said she drank heavily before leaving in Newsom’s chauffeured car for a hotel.
“I wake the next morning beside him, still dressed,” she wrote.
“I am cold, almost shivering, and my dress… is soaked from the waist down. I had passed out. I had also wet the bed,” she added.
Rippey said she left while Newsom was still asleep and returned to her husband and their young son. Days later, she wrote, Newsom returned a gold bracelet she had left behind in the hotel room by placing it on her desk at work.
From there, Rippey said the relationship escalated. She described looking for openings in Newsom’s calendar that would give her opportunities to cross paths with him and recalled receiving a text from him asking, “Where are you?”
“But it never matters where I am because I always go to him – his penthouse in Russian Hill, a private back room in a North Beach bar, the W Hotel in Los Angeles,” she wrote.
Rippey said the pair continued meeting on and off for months, often drinking together and having sexual encounters. She has emphasized that her alcoholism predated the affair and has accepted responsibility for her own choices during that period.
By May 2006, Rippey entered a treatment facility in Arizona. While in rehab, she wrote two letters to Newsom: one resigning from her job and another ending the affair.
After returning home, she initially did not tell Tourk what had happened. Rippey wrote that she eventually confessed to her husband in an email on Jan. 13, 2007, telling him the affair had ended before she entered treatment.
The relationship became public weeks later. On Feb. 1, 2007, Newsom acknowledged the affair at a news conference, telling reporters, “Everything you’ve heard and read is true,” and apologizing for what he described as a personal failure.
Days later, Newsom announced that he had stopped drinking and would seek professional help related to his alcohol use. He later won reelection as San Francisco mayor and continued his rise in California politics, eventually becoming governor.
Rippey’s new account also addresses the power imbalance between the two. While she rejected the idea that she had no agency in the relationship, she argued that a person holding greater power bears additional responsibility for maintaining boundaries.
The one who holds power has “the responsibility to hold the line… that didn’t happen,” she wrote, while also stressing that she was responsible for the decisions she made.
Rippey also took issue with how Newsom characterized the relationship in his memoir, where he described it as “the briefest of affairs.” She wrote that his account left the impression that he had been the person who disclosed the affair to Tourk, while Rippey says she had already confessed to her husband herself.
Newsom’s office responded to the renewed attention by noting that he acknowledged his role in the affair and publicly apologized nearly two decades ago. A spokesperson said he had addressed the episode in his memoir and did not have anything further to add.
The episode is resurfacing as Newsom openly considers a possible run for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. His second and final term as California governor ends in January 2027, making questions about his next political move increasingly prominent.
Rippey, meanwhile, wrote that she is now 20 years sober, has remarried and has rebuilt a relationship with Tourk as they co-parent their son. Her account presents the affair not simply as a political scandal, but as a turning point that reshaped her marriage, career and recovery.
Her decision to revisit the relationship ensures that a long-known chapter of Newsom’s personal history will receive renewed scrutiny as he weighs whether to pursue higher office.
"🔥 POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE! — THE NEW EPSTEIN FILES TWIST THAT PUTS TRUMP UNDER MASSIVE SCRUTINY!"
A new wave of scrutiny surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files is putting Donald Trump back at the center of one of Washington’s most contentious political battles. Representative Ted Lieu has publicly urged authorities and the media to examine disturbing allegations contained in Epstein-related records, while congressional Democrats continue pressing questions about how the Justice Department handled the documents.
The dispute reaches far beyond a single statement from a lawmaker. It involves allegations of sexual abuse, questions about the completeness of a major document release, and a growing political confrontation over whether the public has received a full accounting of the records connected to Epstein.
For Trump, the renewed attention creates another difficult political moment. For Lieu and other Democrats, the central question is whether the available records have received the scrutiny they warrant — and whether additional disclosures could clarify what investigators knew.
But there is an essential distinction at the heart of the controversy: an allegation appearing in an investigative file is not the same as a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
Ted Lieu Brings the Epstein Allegations Back Into the Spotlight
Lieu, a California Democrat and vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, drew attention to the allegations during a news conference on February 3, 2026.
He argued that Republicans’ focus on former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton risked diverting attention from references to Trump in the Epstein files. Lieu urged journalists to examine the allegations recorded in the documents and questioned whether the Justice Department was adequately investigating people connected to Epstein.
His remarks were forceful, but their meaning matters. Lieu was describing allegations contained in the records, not announcing that investigators had established the accusations as fact.
The distinction became particularly important as descriptions of his comments spread online. Some posts suggested that the files conclusively showed criminal conduct or that undisclosed records contained direct proof of abuse. Fact-checking reports found that such descriptions went beyond what Lieu actually said.
The documents include information gathered during investigations into Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose connections to wealthy and influential people have remained a source of public concern. Investigative records can contain witness accounts, tips, interview summaries, and information that has not been independently corroborated.
The presence of a person's name in such records does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct. Nor does the existence of an allegation automatically establish its credibility.
Lieu's intervention nevertheless intensified the debate over what the records contain, what the government has disclosed, and whether further investigative steps are warranted.
A Previously Withheld Set of Records Raises New Questions
The controversy took another turn in February when House Oversight Committee Democrats said the Justice Department appeared to have withheld documents concerning a woman who alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.
According to reporting by ABC News, an index of materials associated with the investigation indicated that FBI agents had interviewed the woman multiple times in 2019. The public release initially appeared to include only one of several interview reports and related notes.
Democratic lawmakers said their review suggested that more than 50 pages of potentially relevant material had not appeared in the public database. They questioned whether the department had properly disclosed records covered by the release requirements.
The Justice Department disputed the Democrats’ characterization. It said responsive documents had been produced unless they fell into categories such as duplicates, privileged material, or records connected to an ongoing federal investigation.
That disagreement raises a substantive question: Were documents missing because of administrative or legal reasons, or did the release fail to include material that should have been made public?
Answering that question requires more than competing statements from politicians. It requires a careful examination of the document index, the records that were released, the records that remain unavailable, and the legal basis for withholding any material.
The department has attributed some problems in the broader release process to the scale and complexity of the records. Democrats have argued that the apparent gaps deserve further investigation.
The dispute has also intensified scrutiny of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has faced congressional questions about the department’s handling of the Epstein files.
What the Allegation in the Records Actually Says
The allegations at issue are serious. According to ABC News, an FBI presentation summarized a woman's account that Epstein introduced her to Trump and that Trump subsequently assaulted her when she was between approximately 13 and 15 years old.
The account is an allegation, not an established finding of fact.
The public record also contains important limitations. An FBI interview summary documents what a witness told investigators; it does not necessarily establish that investigators independently verified the account. Likewise, the appearance of an allegation in a presentation prepared for prosecutors does not, on its own, demonstrate that prosecutors or investigators concluded it was substantiated.
ABC News reported that an internal FBI email indicated the woman ultimately declined to cooperate. That detail is relevant to understanding the investigative record, but it does not independently prove or disprove her account.
The Justice Department has said that some Epstein-related materials contain untrue or sensational claims submitted to the FBI. The White House has also rejected the allegations against Trump as baseless. Trump has denied wrongdoing.
Those responses do not resolve every question about the records or how they were handled. But they are part of the public record and must be considered alongside the allegations and the available documentation.
A responsible examination of the case must keep three issues separate: what a witness alleged, what investigators documented, and what evidence — if any — independently corroborates the allegation.
Confusing those categories can mislead readers and turn an unresolved claim into an apparent conclusion.
Why the Justice Department’s Handling of the Files Matters
The political conflict is not limited to the allegations involving Trump. It also concerns the government’s obligation to handle Epstein-related records transparently while protecting victims’ privacy and complying with legal restrictions.
The release process has attracted criticism over redactions, missing or delayed documents, and the disclosure of sensitive information. Epstein survivors and lawmakers have raised concerns about whether the process adequately balances public accountability with the need to protect people who experienced abuse.
That balance is difficult. Excessive redaction can prevent the public from understanding how authorities handled a major criminal investigation. Insufficient redaction can expose victims’ identities or release private material that should remain protected.
The Justice Department has said that some material must remain withheld for legal reasons, including protections for victims and restrictions involving ongoing investigations. Critics have questioned whether those explanations fully account for every apparent omission.
Congressional oversight could help establish how the department interpreted its obligations, what internal procedures it used, and whether any documents were improperly excluded. It could also determine whether apparent gaps resulted from administrative errors rather than deliberate concealment.
At this stage, the public dispute over the records should not be treated as proof of a coordinated cover-up. That is a conclusion that would require evidence beyond the existence of missing documents or disagreements over disclosure decisions.
The stakes are nonetheless substantial. The credibility of the release process depends on whether the government can explain its decisions and demonstrate that the rules were applied consistently.
A Political Clash With Consequences Beyond Trump
Lieu’s statements have become part of a wider confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration over the Epstein investigation.
Democrats have accused the Justice Department of failing to disclose all relevant records and have demanded greater transparency. Administration officials have countered that some claims circulating in public are unsubstantiated and that the department must follow legal requirements governing sensitive information.
The disagreement has created a political feedback loop: each new document or allegation generates demands for more disclosure, while each dispute over the release creates additional suspicion about what might remain unavailable.
That dynamic can make it difficult to distinguish legitimate unanswered questions from claims that go beyond the evidence.
For Democrats, continued scrutiny offers an opportunity to demand explanations from the administration and test whether the department complied with its obligations. For Trump and his allies, the challenge is to respond to questions about the records while arguing that unverified allegations should not be treated as proof of misconduct.
The political consequences will depend partly on what additional records show and whether independent evidence supports any of the claims. They will also depend on whether congressional inquiries establish procedural failures in the release process.
An investigation may uncover significant new information. It may also conclude that some allegations cannot be substantiated or that missing documents were withheld for legally permissible reasons. Neither outcome should be assumed in advance.
The Questions That Remain
The Epstein files have become a test of public trust in the institutions responsible for investigating abuse, protecting survivors, and disclosing records of legitimate public interest.
Several questions remain central. Were all responsive documents released under the applicable requirements? If material was withheld, what legal or administrative reasons justified the decision? What did investigators establish independently, and which statements remain uncorroborated allegations? And how can the government provide meaningful transparency without exposing survivors to further harm?
Lieu has pressed for greater scrutiny of allegations involving Trump, while other Democrats have focused on the department’s handling of the documents. Those efforts have renewed pressure on the administration, but public statements and congressional accusations are not substitutes for documented findings.
The next meaningful developments will come from the records themselves, any additional disclosures, and the results of formal oversight or investigative proceedings.
For now, the controversy remains a collision of serious allegations, disputed disclosure decisions, and partisan conflict. The public deserves clear answers about the documents and the process used to release them — without treating an allegation as a proven fact or dismissing legitimate questions before the evidence has been examined.
That is what will ultimately determine whether this latest Epstein files dispute produces meaningful accountability or becomes another chapter in Washington’s ongoing political battle.
