California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom may be watching his presidential aspirations disappear before his very eyes, thanks to a former reality TV star with a big platform and an even bigger chip on his shoulder.

In recent days, “The Hills” alum Spencer Pratt has launched a scathing public campaign against Newsom. As one of the many Palisades residents who lost a home in the January 2025 fires, Pratt is drawing attention to the aid raised during the celebrity fundraiser. It was intended to support those who lost everything in the disaster, but Pratt asserts that tens of millions of dollars were never distributed. He ominously suggests ties to Newsom himself. Meanwhile, criticism over the Santa Ynez Reservoir remaining dry has added fuel to the controversy.

Of course, Newsom is desperate to deny any wrongdoing, reminding the public of his calls for investigations while warning against misinformation.

“The second round of $50 million funding, guess who took a FireAid grant?” Pratt asked in an Instagram video. “Let me tell you… Gavin Newsom and his Cal Vols office took a FireAid grant. … We’d like to know how much you took and exactly what you did with the money. And I mean, dollar for dollar, what you did with it.”

Investigative reporter Sue Pascoe told Fox 11, “This FireAid money is not helping the people. It’s helping nonprofits, many of which have executives who are getting six‑figure salaries.” The recipient nonprofits, Pascoe alleges, received funding without passing it to disaster victims directly.

In response to the growing demand for answers on where the money went, Newsom’s office is refuting involvement entirely, stating, “Neither Governor Newsom nor the State of California have received any funding from FireAid. FireAid is an independent organization not affiliated with the state or the Governor. We had no role in the FireAid concerts, or the organization’s decisions to distribute FireAid funds.”

Yet Pratt and a growing group of online supporters are not accepting this excuse. Pratt posted screenshots suggesting the Newsoms’ nonprofit, Cal Volunteers, had disappeared from the FireAid website, adding personal speculation as to what could have happened.

Pratt alleges that despite FireAid’s website promising an estimated $100 million was designated for direct relief and not administrative costs, none of that money reached the intended wildfire survivors. He has continued to cite Pascoe’s work as his primary source, as he has been unable to obtain a requested official state audit or government document to support the idea that the money went to nonprofits with high-paid executives rather than to any of the victims.

Pratt and the journalists who are actually interested in reporting on things that matter to everyday people have kept a spotlight on the still-empty Santa Ynez Reservoir, furthering the overall allegations of negligence and misappropriated resources by Newsom and his administration. The governor addressed the criticism of ignoring the Santa Ynez Reservoir in interviews and public letters. He told one reporter that the state reservoirs were “completely full.”

However, when photos emerged of the “bone-dry” reservoir and Newsom couldn’t rely on telling people not to believe what they were seeing with their own eyes, he clarified that he was referring to the state‑level reservoirs, not the county‑run Santa Ynez facility. This seemed to fit with Newsom’s consistent history of passing the buck to anyone within reach, thereby avoiding accountability for yet another failure on his record.

For good measure, he added that the facility in question was undergoing repairs and therefore empty at the time. He went on to characterize the “misinformation” surrounding the reservoir management as “inexcusable.”

Experts in environmental policy and water management are coming to Newsom’s rescue by strongly rejecting any claims that tie Newsom directly to water shortages (though Newsom has still somehow found a way to tie President Donald Trump to the disaster). ABC News and CalMatters explained that Southern California had plenty of water, but the complications were actually caused by local infrastructure, distribution pressure, and climate change. The problem was definitely not due to the reservoir being empty.

Notably, the only reason the public is aware of the continued neglect of the fire victims and the resources needed to prevent devastation of this magnitude in the future is because of a small local reporter and a reality TV star. Much of the mainstream media has not prioritized investigations into FireAid’s accounting or Pratt’s accusations. Pratt’s vocal indictments of the governor and footage of empty reservoirs have nonetheless drawn attention to what would otherwise be unasked questions: Where exactly did the celebrity‑funded aid go? Why wasn’t local infrastructure bolstered in time?

Should Gavin Newsom decide to run for president — something widely discussed for 2028 — these controversies could be (and should be) politically damaging. Critics will seize on the optics of millions being raised supposedly for victims, but with no victims receiving any of it, along with a state infrastructure failure that took months (if ever) to be corrected. Pratt taking on this matter and drawing attention to it taps into a long-standing wave of grievances that have been aired by everyday Americans — celebrities exploiting our struggles to collect money, government lining its own pocket while ignoring victims, and overall inaction or incompetence by those we put in positions of power to serve and protect us.

Even if FireAid is independent and Newsom had no hand in it, this story feeds the broader narratives of elite detachment and ineffective leadership.

Newsom’s key challenge lies in demonstrating that the FireAid fund is genuinely independent, that the nonprofit cohort adhered to distribution protocols, and that the repairs and infrastructure shortcomings indeed contributed to reservoir failures. He is also banking on the idea that the general population will accept his explanation while ignoring his actions.

While mainstream media outlets have largely kept their distance from this story, the boldness of Pratt’s claims and the political resonance surrounding misdirected aid and government incompetence — and outright neglect — give the controversy lasting legs.