Gavin Newsom is not finished making headlines for himself just yet.
The Governor of California is requesting $33,000 from taxpayers for an official portrait, an opportunity to join an elite group, despite pushback from Democratic lawmakers about his “outrageous” $20 million plan to honor the state’s living former governors.
This funding is part of the “Governor Portrait” allocation in Newsom’s proposed budget for the fiscal year 2026-27. The goal is to create a “traditional gubernatorial portrait” for display in the state Capitol, alongside portraits of previous governors.
The $33,000 would be drawn from the state’s general fund, all while Democratic legislators and budget analysts are tightening discretionary spending. California is grappling with a long-term structural budget deficit, and residents are facing rising gas prices, soaring housing costs, and increasing healthcare expenses.
State Senator Suzette Validares (R-Santa Clarita) found the costs excessive.
“Only in Sacramento does a governor look at struggling families and think, ‘What they really need is a picture of me,’” she commented.
Rep. Alexandra M. Macedo (R-Fresno), who has criticized Newsom over the high-speed rail project, added some levity by saying the proposed portrait symbolizes “modern California governance.”
“At least future generations will have a memorable photo of a man who spent billions of dollars leaving a permanent scar on prime Central Valley farmland for a train that won’t connect Northern and Southern California,” Macedo quipped.
Traditionally, California governors have their official portraits hung in the Capitol after their terms end—a practice initiated by Jerry Brown. Interestingly, Brown’s portrait was humorously described by some as resembling “spilled ketchup and soy sauce.”
In fact, back in 1984, the artist Don Bachardi received about $13,000 for a portrait, which adjusted for inflation, would be around $41,000 today.
The timing of Newsom’s request raises eyebrows, particularly after reports indicated that he included a vague $20 million “governor’s legacy” fund in his historic $349.9 billion budget proposal. This would allow the administration to allocate funds for unspecified projects to honor living former governors, and he has also hired a personal photographer at a rate of $200,000 annually.
“This governor’s vanity has no limits,” remarked state Senator Brian Jones (R-San Diego). “His self-serving behavior is unrealistic. But like past notorious leaders, he won’t fool real Californians struggling under his rule with gilded propaganda.”
Newsom’s office did not respond to requests for comment regarding the portrait but had defended the $20 million proposal. They stated that it wouldn’t specifically fund the current governor, but would aim to highlight the public service achievements of past living governors from both parties.
Democratic lawmakers have already expressed their disdain for the governor’s extensive legacy plan. State Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Los Angeles) called the $20 million fund “ridiculous” during a health services budget hearing.
“I’m not interested in crediting any governor, past or present,” Menjivar stated. “I care about ensuring seniors have access to health insurance.”
State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo County) criticized lawmakers for approving such budget allocations without clear plans, likening it to unnecessary renovations of President Trump’s White House ballroom.
“There’s really nothing here,” Cabaldon said. “No concrete proposal to respond to.”
Republicans expressed even greater outrage, asserting that Newsom’s budget choices show a preoccupation with his own image rather than addressing everyday issues facing Californians.
Leading Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton dismissed the $20 million proposal as a “vanity project.”
Clearly, the portrait request is aimed at claiming his space in the Capitol Gallery.
Newsom’s penchant for self-celebration isn’t new.
A bronze bust to commemorate his tenure as San Francisco mayor was installed in City Hall in 2018, just months before he ascended to the governorship. That bust cost $100,000, funded by private donations linked to Newsom.
This self-admiration has drawn comparisons to Trump’s extravagant commissions for projects like the White House ballroom and Smithsonian portraits.
Newsom has also sought millions for travel expenses and funds for his wife’s political activities as California’s “first partner,” and has accepted significant donations from special interests, often in public view.
However, there’s no indication that he attempted to secure outside funding for his portrait, leading the financial burden to fall squarely on taxpayers.
