Gavin Newsom drops F-bomb when Joe Rogan asks whether he regrets major decision while governor
Newsom stunned listeners with a blunt response when asked to address his most controversial pandemic-era policies and dropped during the four-hour long interview on The Shawn Ryan Show.
Ryan - a former Navy Seal - revealed that he had received a private text message from Rogan prior to the interview to ask Newsom.
'Joe Rogan texted me,' Ryan revealed.
'Mother f**ker!' Newsom responded. 'What did he say? I'm a Joe Rogan fan. He ain't a fan of mine, but I'm a Joe Rogan fan,' Newsom insisted. 'No bulls***! He won't have me on the show by the way.'
Rogan's message accused the governor of implementing 'draconian' COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children, ignoring risks like myocarditis, and bowing to pharmaceutical interests.
Rogan, who has long criticized public health messaging, demanded to know whether Newsom 'felt any remorse' for what he described as unnecessary and profit-driven policies.
The question, read aloud on the podcast, struck a nerve.
'Who will be held accountable for mandating Covid-19 vaccines for children which were unnecessary and ineffective and who will take responsibility for the unprecedented increases in myocarditis and cancer cases among them?', Ryan began as he read Rogan's message.
'Second to that, do you feel any remorse for that draconian decision that was obviously heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical company's desire for maximum profit?'
Newsom didn't flinch - but he didn't avoid the question either.
'I've signed some of the most progressive laws against Big Pharma in the country. I have receipts on that.,' Newsom said firmly. 'So no one should suggest that it was about doing the bidding of Big Pharma. Quite the contrary.'
Newsom defended his decision-making during the early days of the pandemic noting how California moved quickly alongside red states like Florida and under guidance from Donald Trump's own administration to implement lockdowns and other measures.
'There wasn't a Democratic governor in America that worked closer during the pandemic than I did with Donald Trump,' Newsom said, reflecting on the chaos and uncertainty that defined the initial response to Covid-19.
Rather than offer a flat apology, Newsom said he has recently launched an in-depth, state-sponsored investigation into California's handling of the pandemic.
Newsom says the process will be the most comprehensive and 'objective' postmortem in the country.
'With humility, seriously, humility and grace, I've asked them to have that report done,' he said. 'It'll be the only state that I know of that is putting out a truly objective review of what went right and what went wrong.'
The governor acknowledged that mistakes were made, particularly with early policies that were driven by fear and misinformation. Among the regrets Newsom says shutting down beaches and other outdoor spaces was a mistake.
'What the hell were we doing shutting down the beaches and open areas?' he asked. 'We were sitting there wiping down everything in the house with Purell.'
Still, Newsom stood by the science behind vaccinations, especially when it came to preventing mass deaths.
'Vaccines save lives. Period. Full stop,' he said. 'And I'm just not going to engage in the kind of revisionist history that pretends otherwise.'
In a particularly candid moment of the lengthy interview, Newsom said he regretted heading to trendy restaurant French Laundry for dinner during the pandemic despite there being strict rules on indoor dining and the number of people allowed to gather.
'I despise me for the French Laundry. I was wrong. I went to this damn restaurant. That's the rules for thee and not for me,' Newsom said.
'I'm going to indict myself here. Biggest boneheaded damn decision I made. Now, it was a restaurant that was open but it was against the spirit of what I was saying which is that you shouldn't have large dinners with large groups of people as we did.
'And I went to a damn birthday party and I paid a price - and I own it. You know, I'm not perfect, man. You know, I beat the s*** out of myself for that. And everyone who criticized me is goddamn right. And I own that.'
Under Newsom's leadership, California became one of the most aggressive states in its pandemic response - mandating remote work, issuing sweeping mask orders, and imposing the first statewide stay-at-home directive in the nation in March 2020.
The state leaned into digital infrastructure, which allowed many industries to adapt through remote work.
Its sunny climate and car-centric culture also allowed for more outdoor activities than in densely packed cities on the East Coast.
But the costs were steep as tens of thousands of small businesses shuttered permanently. Public schools remained closed longer than in many other states.
Critics hammered Newsom for what they called inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical rules, citing his now-infamous dinner at the upscale French Laundry restaurant while indoor gatherings were banned.
Despite the criticism, Newsom pushed back on the idea that states like Florida had done better.
'Florida shut down bars and restaurants before California. Florida had worse educational outcomes during COVID than California,' he said, citing reading and math scores.
'They had more per capita deaths than California. Their GDP contracted more than California's. On three key areas, education, health, and wealth, California outperformed.'
He dismissed what he called 'myth-making' around Florida's record and claimed that the 'California derangement syndrome' had become a media obsession.
Newsom also voiced concern about the country's preparedness for future pandemics, warning that political division and distrust have left the US vulnerable.
'We're going to have another one of these damn things,' he said. 'And we're totally unprepared because we're so distrustful of everybody.'
Rather than treat the pandemic as political hindsight, Newsom said California's upcoming report will aim to break partisan narratives.
'We're interviewing people that vehemently disagreed with us,' he explained. 'People who opposed the mask mandates. People who opposed the stay-at-home orders. International experts. We're stress-testing our entire process.'
That process, he said, began years ago at a summit in Sunnylands, where California convened global health experts to begin gathering data on how it handled COVID across its 58 counties - each with different levels of density, infrastructure, and risk.
While the final verdict on California's performance will be up to historians and voters, Newsom had a clear message.
'Everyone's a goddamn genius now in hindsight,' he said. 'But at the time, none of us knew what we were up against - including the president of the United States.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'
A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a 'disaster' Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world. 'It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted,' said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation. Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment — a call for a ceasefire — during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was 'stunning' to see a U.S. president consider. 'He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States — war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America,' Murphy said. Trump 'walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'' the senator continued. 'And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia.' Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin. The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed. Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac. On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union t hat the U.S. secured what he claimed was a 'game-changing' development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said. Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines. Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 'That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on,' said the senator. 'He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine.' He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was 'another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations.' Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week. Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Van Hollen called this news a 'setback' for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being 'flattered' by Putin. 'There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky,' said Van Hollen. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed. "President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences.' Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance. Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
What's at stake when Zelensky meets Trump at the White House with Starmer and EU allies in tow
European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, will join Volodymyr Zelensky for a high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump at the White House on Monday. The prime minister will travel to Washington alongside several European leaders in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian president, whose last visit to the Oval Office ended in a disastrous clash with Mr Trump. The summit comes just days after the US president met Vladimir Putin in Alaska, in which it is understood that the Russian president demanded that Ukraine cede the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a condition for ending the war. Mr Trump is said to have privately endorsed the proposal, a move that Kyiv has strongly resisted. Ukraine's leader has warned that Russia 's refusal to halt hostilities before agreeing to a settlement would complicate any attempt at securing lasting peace. Speaking ahead of his trip, Mr Zelensky said: 'Stopping the killing is a key element of stopping the war.' Downing Street said Sir Keir and other leaders 'stand ready to support this next phase of talks' and will stress that their backing for Ukraine will continue 'as long as it takes.' Who is going to Washington? European leaders confirmed to be attending include: Sir Keir Starmer, UK prime minister Emmanuel Macron, French president Friedrich Merz, German Chancellor Alexander Stubb, President of Finland Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission Mark Rutte, Nato Secretary General Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister The Ukrainian president will travel with a strong backing after participating in a coalition call on Sunday afternoon, hosted by the UK, France, and Germany. The so-called 'coalition of the willing' aims to provide security guarantees, including policing any future peace deal with troops on the ground in Ukraine. What will be discussed on Monday? The talks are expected to cover territorial questions, including Russia's demand for Ukraine to cede Donetsk and Luhansk. They are also expected to address security guarantees for Ukraine, which could be backed by US air power. The role of Nato and European allies in enforcing a settlement is likely to be discussed, alongside sanction pressures on Russia. European leaders want to also ensure Ukraine is at the table for all negotiations. Speaking alongside Mr Zelensky in Brussels, Ms von der Leyen said: 'With regards to any territorial questions in Ukraine, our position is clear: international borders cannot be changed by force. 'These are decisions to be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone, and these decisions cannot be taken without Ukraine at the table.' European powers also want to help set up a trilateral meeting between Mr Trump, Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky to make sure Ukraine has a seat at the table to shape its future. What are Russia's demands? At the Alaska summit, Mr Putin reportedly insisted Ukraine must surrender Donetsk and Luhansk in full, abandon its Nato aspirations and declare neutrality. He offered to freeze the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, sources close to the meeting told The Independent. Around 88 per cent of the Donbas is under Russian control. This includes almost all of the Luhansk region and 75 per cent of the Donetsk region. Russia controls nearly 44,600 square miles or 19 per cent of Ukraine in total, including the Crimean peninsula, according to open-source maps of the battlefield. Mr Zelensky has rejected the idea of handing over territory, insisting talks must be based on current front lines and begin with a ceasefire. Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Mr Putin agreed to allow the US and its European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee at his meeting with the US president on Friday. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato," Mr Witkoff told CNN. He added that it 'was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that' and called them 'game-changing.' Article 5, at the heart of the 32-member military alliance, states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's commitment to providing security guarantees to Ukraine, following a meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. What happened the last time Zelensky met Trump? Their previous Oval Office meeting in February ended in a dramatic confrontation. A planned mineral deal signing ceremony collapsed as Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance accused Mr Zelensky of being 'ungrateful' and 'gambling with World War III'. Mr Zelensky pushed back, insisting there could be 'no compromises with a killer' – a reference to Mr Putin. The meeting was cut short, the joint press conference cancelled, and Mr Trump declared afterwards that Zelensky could 'come back when he is ready for peace', and temporarily suspended aid to Ukraine.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Zelensky returns to Washington, this time with Europe at his side
It has to be a tribute to Volodymyr Zelensky 's resilience, as well as an acknowledgement of Donald Trump 's still-pivotal role as the would-be peacemaker, that he is prepared to risk another encounter at the White House. That meeting, six months ago, has gone down in the annals as one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern-day diplomacy, with a national leader humiliated in front of the cameras in a grilling that the US president said afterwards would make good television. Lessons have clearly been drawn from that dire encounter, not just by President Zelensky himself, and maybe President Trump, who mended fences at an informal tete-a-tete at the Vatican, but also by the Ukrainian's many European supporters. Joining Mr Zelensky in Washington will be the heads of the EU and Nato, and a clutch of European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer. That all these highly placed individuals are prepared to meet, as they did in various configurations on Sunday, and travel at such short notice to Washington at the height of Europe's holiday season, shows how high the stakes are, as seen not just by Ukraine, but by Europe. And they are certainly a great deal higher than they were in February, given both the situation on the battlefield and what would appear to be the new level of understanding between Mr Trump and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, following their summit in Alaska. Whatever format is applied to the meeting, or surely meetings, in Washington, there are lessons that it must be hoped Mr Zelensky has taken to heart, should he find himself again one-to-one with Trump in the Oval Office. They include using a translator – whether or not he thinks he needs one – and ignoring media questions before any talks have taken place. What he chooses to wear, on the other hand, should be for him to decide, not for the White House to dictate. In the end, though, the presence of so many high-level Europeans may be the best guarantee that Mr Zelensky is not treated as a lone leader of a peripheral state who can easily be imposed upon. And there are already intimations of a little more transatlantic flexibility on two key points. After Alaska, Mr Trump appeared to follow Putin's script for an actual end to the war, rather than an immediate ceasefire. The Europeans now appear to have followed, with the ceasefire demand now replaced by the longer-term, if more complex, aim of ending the war. It would also appear that security guarantees – a consistent requirement of Ukraine and slightly less consistent on the part of the Europeans – may be back on the agenda, although vague as to what form they might take and whether the US would underwrite them. With Nato membership for Ukraine one of Russia's reddest of red lines, this could help square that circle. The choreography in Washington alone will itself challenge complaints that the US and Russia were intent on cobbling together an agreement over the heads of Ukraine and Europe. This does not mean that the visitors should not be wary that Washington may listen and not hear. The Europeans must do their utmost not to make cracks show, and stick to what appears to be their simple and limited script. In particular, that means Ukraine's full participation in any peace process. There must also be no dilution of their stance on what the Trump White House is calling 'land swaps' and might more accurately be called territorial concessions. The European position appears to be that no borders may be changed by force, although the last word must rest with Ukraine, which is quite right. Mr Zelensky has at times hinted at a readiness at least to broach such a possibility, while at others – including at Sunday's joint press conference with Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels – insisting that sacrificing land would be out of the question as it would contravene Ukraine's constitution. In the end, though, the benefits for Ukraine of ending the war may have to be set against any territorial losses. Domestically, this will be one of Mr Zelensky's toughest calls. Internationally, there are diplomatic formulas that can cope with continuing territorial ambiguities. The emotive issue of Ukraine's abducted children must also be factored into any discussions. If it is true that the US first lady, Melania Trump, has taken up their cause, then their return may not be as remote a prospect as once seemed. Above all, the principle of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' is not just a slogan; it is an entirely practical requirement. There can be no peace that does not reflect the assent of Ukraine, as it will simply not endure. The torrent of recent developments has opened the question of whether, for all Moscow 's official intransigence, there is enough now in play, as between the US, Russia and Ukraine, for some modest progress towards peace. A very cautious 'Yes' may be the best answer that can be hoped for out of Washington on Monday.
