There really is a private, men-only retreat among the redwoods of Sonoma County. There really are unusual ceremonies, high-profile guests and rules against publicizing the gatherings. And in February 2026, journalist Daniel Boguslaw published what he described as a 2023 camp roster containing roughly 2,200 names. The documents have reignited an old question: how much of Bohemian Grove’s power comes from what actually happens there, and how much from its secrecy?
A private retreat with a public reputation
Bohemian Grove is the summer retreat associated with San Francisco’s Bohemian Club, founded in the 19th century. Its gatherings in the Sonoma County redwoods have included artists, politicians, executives and other prominent guests. The club’s owl imagery and its theatrical ‘Cremation of Care’ ceremony have become magnets for speculation.
Some of the atmosphere is undeniably theatrical. Members have staged plays, music and costumed performances for more than a century. That history is visible in surviving archival photographs, including early 20th-century images made at the Grove. None of that alone establishes a supernatural ritual or an unlawful conspiracy.
What the February 2026 leak actually was
On February 24, 2026, independent journalist Daniel Boguslaw published a claimed 2023 Bohemian Grove camp membership list. The San Francisco Standard reported the next day that the list contained around 2,200 names and that one club member confirmed its authenticity. The paper also reported that the Bohemian Club did not publicly disclose its member and guest lists.
Those are substantial reporting details, but the document’s limits matter. A 2023 camp list is not necessarily a complete registry of the entire San Francisco-based Bohemian Club. Names on such a list do not independently prove that every person attended a particular event, participated in a given ceremony or made a private policy decision there. The larger claim of coordinated secret control would require evidence beyond a roster.
Influence is not the same thing as a plot
Elite gatherings can raise fair questions about unequal access. Powerful people may meet socially with fewer cameras, fewer public records and little outside scrutiny. That can make the public curious about relationships and potential conflicts of interest. But proximity is not proof of wrongdoing; nor is a dinner conversation automatically an organized plan to determine public policy.
The Grove’s famous owl, private performances and long history of clandestine access have created fertile ground for elaborate theories. The best way to test them is to separate what can be photographed, documented or independently reported from what merely seems sinister. An actual roster can support claims about who was listed. It cannot reveal what every private conversation contained.
What remains unanswered
The unanswered questions are practical ones: what relationships were built there, whether any relevant official actions followed, and when the public has a legitimate right to know about meetings involving public officials. Those questions require records, disclosures and follow-up reporting—not invented quotations or guilt by association.
The revealing part of this story may not be an owl-shaped sculpture. It may be the contrast between a very real network of social access and the enormous conclusions that people are tempted to draw from it.
Sources and further reading
- Daniel Boguslaw, original roster publication, February 24, 2026
- San Francisco Standard, independent reporting and response, February 25, 2026
- The Washington Post, historical background on Bohemian Grove, 2023
Featured photograph: Authentic early Bohemian Grove gathering in the redwoods, attributed to Jack London, circa 1911–1916; Wikimedia Commons, public domain in the United States. This is an archival scene, not an image from 2023 or 2026.
