Judge Allows Lawsuit Alleging Newsom Aided Anti-Semitic Campaign To Proceed

A California judge has ruled that a wrongful termination lawsuit naming Gov. Gavin Newsom and one of his top military appointees may proceed — clearing the way for potentially damaging evidence to surface just as Newsom positions himself for a likely 2028 presidential run.

The suit was brought by former Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram, a senior commander in the California National Guard, who alleges that Newsom “facilitated and ratified” an anti-Semitic retaliation campaign that led to his dismissal in 2022, according to reporting from the Washington Free Beacon.

At the center of the allegations is Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, a Newsom appointee accused of referring to a Jewish officer as a “kike” lawyer during a private exchange with another state official. Magram says he was targeted and pushed out after defending the officer and objecting to Beevers’s conduct.

On Friday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi rejected the administration’s effort to dismiss most of the case, allowing six of the eight claims to move forward. The ruling means Newsom’s team will be required to produce records, communications, and potentially sit for sworn depositions — a development the governor’s political strategists likely hoped to avoid.

“This is a victory for accountability,” Magram told the Washington Free Beacon. “We are very much looking forward to the facts coming out in this case and for the truth to be heard by all.”

Magram says he repeatedly notified the governor’s staff in writing that Beevers was pursuing a “personal vendetta” fueled by “bigoted beliefs,” but that Newsom’s office ignored his warnings and later signed off on his removal.

His termination, according to the Free Beacon, deprived California of one of its most seasoned wildfire response leaders at a time when the state faced massive, deadly blazes. Magram’s personnel record is filled with commendations for saving lives and leading complex disaster operations.

The Newsom administration has stood by Beevers. After allegations first surfaced in 2022, Newsom ordered an investigation — but the inquiry was quickly closed on a procedural technicality. The official who overheard the slur had not filed a written complaint with himself. Months later, Beevers was promoted to lead the California National Guard.

Last year, Newsom spokesman Izzy Gardon insisted the claims “were thoroughly and independently investigated … and were found to be fully unsubstantiated.”

Beevers has defended Magram’s firing by pointing to a 2021 U.S. Air Force inspector general report accusing Magram of using subordinates for personal tasks. Magram disputes the findings, saying he was on official orders at the time and that several witnesses had direct conflicts of interest.

Despite the report, Magram’s performance reviews over the years describe him as a highly competent and mission-focused officer whose leadership “saved lives” and strengthened state emergency response capabilities.

Now, the case moves into discovery — and that phase may prove politically explosive. Internal communications from Newsom’s office, military command records, and decision-making timelines could soon become public.

Analysts note the timing is precarious for the governor, who has attempted to shape his national image around unity, stability, and ethical leadership.