California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has requested that the FBI re-interview rival Xavier Becerra as part of a federal corruption investigation into the alleged theft of $225,000 from Becerra’s campaign funds. The demand comes after three individuals connected to Becerra pleaded guilty in November 2025 to charges related to the alleged diversion of funds.
In a letter dated August 30 and addressed to Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Eric Grant, Hilton argued that evidence developed since Becerra's initial interview raises significant questions about his knowledge of the transactions. The case involves money allegedly funneled from Becerra’s dormant campaign account through a consulting firm led by Dana Williamson, former chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom, and ultimately to the wife of Sean McCluskie, Becerra’s former chief of staff. McCluskie, Williamson, and Sacramento lobbyist Greg Campbell have all pleaded guilty.
Hilton, along with California attorney general candidate Michael Gates, contends that Becerra’s public statements are inconsistent with the available evidence. Hilton specifically highlighted discrepancies in Becerra’s accounts of his awareness of the payment transfers, noting instances where Becerra stated he knew about the transfers but not their purpose, and other times claimed he was unaware of them entirely.
The candidates assert that Becerra was interviewed before key figures pleaded guilty and before the full extent of evidence was uncovered. Their letter states that Becerra was not pressed on the central question of his knowledge regarding the scheme involving his own campaign account and his chief of staff. They pointed to the federal indictment’s allegations concerning “Public Official 1,” whom Becerra has identified himself as. According to the letter, the indictment suggests McCluskie discussed the payments with Public Official 1 both when they were established and when the routing method changed, and that McCluskie informed Public Official 1 that $10,000 per month was a reasonable fee, with disclosures reviewed by McCluskie and/or Public Official 1.
Hilton suggested that communications between McCluskie and Williamson should be presented to Becerra during a new interview, stating, “That suggests that he did know.” He added, “I don’t know whether he knew, I don’t know whether he lied, but the public deserves to know the answers.” Hilton speculated that the scheme’s purpose was to provide additional funds for McCluskie to accompany Becerra to Washington when Becerra became U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.
Becerra has consistently denied any knowledge that the payments were part of a criminal scheme, though his explanations have varied. Following the charges against McCluskie and Williamson, Becerra acknowledged awareness of payments from his campaign account, telling FOX40, “I knew what was being paid... What I didn’t know was all the underlying activity that was occurring that was against the law.” He stated he believed the payments were legitimate fees for managing his dormant account and that he relied on McCluskie. Prosecutors, however, alleged Becerra was not informed that campaign money would go to McCluskie’s wife or that she would hold a no-work job, despite being told Williamson would receive $10,000 monthly to manage the account and that McCluskie’s wife would work for Williamson’s firm.
Becerra has disputed recalling some conversations detailed in court records, including McCluskie reportedly telling him about his wife’s employment with the consultants. After Williamson’s guilty plea, Becerra posted on X, “I did nothing wrong. Case closed.” A spokesperson for Becerra has stated he “had no idea what was going on” and that the scheme was designed to deceive him. Federal prosecutors have not charged Becerra and have characterized him as a victim.
Other campaigns have also raised questions. The campaign for billionaire Tom Steyer pointed to reports that an attorney for Williamson stated that McCluskie had represented to Williamson that Becerra had approved the arrangement. According to a report, discovery in the case includes electronic records of McCluskie telling Williamson, “Becerra okayed this.” Steyer's campaign stated, “Voters deserve to know about his role: Is he incompetent, or is he corrupt?”
Hilton defended his demand for a new interview, asserting it is in the interest of providing voters with full information before the November election. The U.S. Department of Justice typically has policies discouraging overt investigative actions close to an election that could influence the outcome.
The California Post reported that Becerra’s office and the FBI did not respond to requests for comment.