COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Tells Reporter to F**k Off

A collection of various microphones arranged for a press conference

A taxpayer-funded California communications director told a credentialed journalist to “f**k off” after she requested proof of Governor Gavin Newsom’s claimed dyslexia diagnosis, sparking outrage over government accountability and professionalism.

Story Snapshot

Newsom’s communications director Izzy Gardon sent profane response to RealClearPolitics reporter requesting dyslexia documentation
Request followed controversial Atlanta remarks where Newsom equated his SAT struggles with Black audience members
Governor claims 1972 diagnosis found in 2018 paperwork, but no proof provided to verify decades-old medical claim
Incident highlights growing tensions between government officials and journalists seeking basic accountability from public servants

Journalist’s Legitimate Request Met With Profanity

RealClearPolitics reporter Susan Crabtree submitted a straightforward inquiry to Governor Gavin Newsom’s office on February 23, 2026, requesting documentation of his repeatedly claimed dyslexia diagnosis. The California resident and credentialed journalist asked specific questions about the 1972 diagnosis paperwork Newsom claims he discovered after his father’s death in 2018, or any recent medical evidence supporting his public assertions. Communications Director Izzy Gardon, whose salary comes from California taxpayers, responded with “Respectfully, f**k off.” Crabtree published screenshots of the official email exchange on X, immediately drawing widespread condemnation from those who expect basic professionalism from government employees.

Atlanta Remarks Trigger Scrutiny of Longstanding Claims

The documentation request stemmed from Newsom’s February 22 appearance at an Atlanta book tour event with Mayor Andre Dickens, where he invoked his dyslexia and low SAT score of 960. Newsom told the predominantly Black audience, “I’m like you… I cannot read a speech,” drawing accusations of patronizing racial pandering. Fox News host Sean Hannity challenged Newsom over the remarks, highlighting the governor’s privileged upbringing. This exchange prompted legitimate questions about whether Newsom’s dyslexia narrative serves as a convenient political tool rather than documented reality. Newsom has referenced his learning disability since at least 2018, consistently claiming a childhood diagnosis, yet has never provided verification despite making it central to his public persona.

Taxpayer-Funded Official Attacks Press Accountability

Rather than apologizing for the unprofessional response, Gardon doubled down on social media, dismissing critics as MAGA hypocrites and attacking conservatives for supposed double standards regarding Trump’s language. This deflection ignores a fundamental distinction: private citizens and elected officials speaking at rallies differ vastly from taxpayer-salaried communications professionals responding to press inquiries. Newsom himself joined the fray, telling Hannity to “spare me your fake f*cking outrage,” reinforcing his team’s contemptuous attitude toward legitimate journalism. The incident exposes a troubling pattern where government officials believe themselves above accountability, treating reasonable questions as attacks deserving hostility rather than transparent answers.

No Documentation Forthcoming Despite Public Claims

As of February 24, neither Newsom nor his staff have provided any evidence supporting the dyslexia diagnosis he has invoked repeatedly for political benefit. The governor claims paperwork from 1972 exists, discovered among his late father’s belongings in 2018, yet refuses to share this documentation with journalists or the public. Conservative analysts predict no proof will emerge, suggesting the diagnosis functions more as narrative armor against criticism than verifiable medical fact. For California taxpayers funding Newsom’s six-figure communications staff, the refusal to substantiate a claim used to connect with voters raises serious questions about honesty and transparency. If documentation exists as claimed, producing it would immediately resolve the controversy—the continued refusal speaks volumes about what may actually be available.