Newsom Calls California’s COVID Beach Closures ‘Insane in Hindsight’

California Governor Gavin Newsom now calls parts of his own pandemic playbook “insane,” even as many businesses say the damage cannot be undone.

Story Highlights

Newsom expressed regret over sweeping COVID rules, calling beach closures “insane” and his French Laundry dinner “boneheaded.”
California banned and later restored outdoor dining as statewide stay-at-home orders shifted.
Courts later said the state had a legitimate interest in halting the virus, even without specific outdoor-dining data.
Restaurant owners say the bans devastated workers and trust in leaders.

What Newsom Said And Why It Matters

Governor Gavin Newsom recently said that closing beaches was “insane in hindsight,” and called his French Laundry dinner a “boneheaded” mistake. Reports summarized his regret over parts of California’s COVID response during a media interview. The remarks revive a hard question: were some emergency rules too broad for the evidence at hand, and who pays when leaders get it wrong? The comments do not change history, but they validate the public’s mixed view of crisis policymaking.

His words land in a state that cycled through sweeping orders. California first shut down in-person dining, including outdoors, during a surge. The state later lifted the regional stay-at-home order, which let counties restore outdoor dining under strict rules. The pattern shows a moving target shaped by hospital capacity, case counts, and pressure from workers and businesses. The swing from bans to reopenings underscored how leaders traded speed for precision in a fast-changing emergency.

How The Outdoor-Dining Bans Rolled Out And Reversed

In late 2020, California tied restrictions to a tiered system and intensive care unit forecasts. That meant table service could be on one week and off the next. When the statewide order ended, outdoor dining returned with limits on seating, masks, and spacing. Los Angeles County followed suit soon after. These shifts mapped to the same goal—cut mixing to slow spread—yet they often moved faster than clear data on which settings drove infections at the time.

Courts offered mixed signals that mirrored the confusion. One federal judge declined to block the state’s outdoor-dining ban, saying the policy served a “legitimate governmental interest” in stopping COVID-19. At the same time, local rulings and later appeals wrestled with whether officials weighed health benefits against economic harms and whether data singled out outdoor tables as a key risk. The legal record shows officials had authority, but evidence on outdoor spread remained thin.

Economic Fallout And Public Trust

Restaurant owners describe the bans as a body blow. Industry reporting said California leisure and hospitality small-business openings fell by nearly half in the first pandemic year, and Los Angeles County restaurant jobs dropped by about one-third. Owners said workers lost paychecks and savings, while takeout could not cover fixed costs. Many felt singled out while seeing crowded big-box stores open. That picture fueled anger across party lines at how rules landed on Main Street.

Gavin's authoritarianism in action
Gavins unchecked power.

COVID emergency powers and lockdowns (2020–2023)
Newsom declared a state of emergency in March 2020 and issued dozens of executive orders that changed existing statutes without the Legislature. These included the…

— Live Free or Die (@floomph) September 22, 2026

Some critics focused on double standards. Newsom’s apology for his French Laundry dinner drew sharp pushback from operators who had closed patios to follow rules. They called the apology hollow and said trust broke when leaders did not live by their own guidance. Their view is simple: leaders can say sorry, but closures and layoffs already happened. That trust gap remains a warning for future crises. People accept sacrifice more easily when rules are clear, fair, and consistently followed.

What This Episode Teaches About Emergency Power

The arc of bans, reversals, and regrets shows the trade-offs of rule-by-emergency. Fast action can save lives, but blanket orders can miss the mark and breed cynicism. California’s shift back to outdoor dining suggests flexibility, yet the swing cost businesses real money. Courts affirmed the state’s broad room to act, but many citizens now want guardrails: public data to justify closures, regular sunset checks, and clear metrics to reopen, so the cure does not crush the patient.