Sen. Alex Padilla wanted to show he was a Californian through and through. He ended up getting a lesson in how quickly a burger photo can turn into a referendum on his home state’s business climate.
In a post on X, the California Democrat shared a video of himself ordering a Double-Double with extra-toasted buns and grilled onions, soundtracked by the Beach Boys’ “I Get Around.” His caption promised he was “fueled up and ready to fight for us back in DC this week,” according to American Thinker’s write-up of the episode.
The reply thread did not go the way he hoped. As American Thinker’s Monica Showalter noted, the most pointed responses focused on a simple fact Padilla appeared not to have considered: In-N-Out, the chain he was using as a symbol of California authenticity, has been moving much of its operation out of California — and its owner has said so in plain terms.
The headquarters moved east
In-N-Out’s owner, Lynsey Snyder, relocated to Nashville and set up a de facto headquarters in Tennessee rather than keeping it in the state the brand is culturally tied to. Her explanation, as quoted in the coverage: “There’s a lot of great things about California. But raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here.”
That is not a throwaway line from a disgruntled franchisee. It is the owner of one of the most recognizable brands in the country saying, on the record, that California’s cost of living and regulatory environment made staying put impractical. For a senator whose political identity leans heavily on defending California’s policies, choosing that particular chain as a backdrop was an unforced error.
Commenters under Padilla’s post made the connection immediately. One told him plainly that In-N-Out “moved their headquarters OUT OF CALIFORNIA because of your lunatic … anti-business policies,” and that the remaining locations “exist IN SPITE OF YOU, not because of you.” Another summed it up: “Isn’t that special, he’s at a restaurant that’s exiting California.”
The Oakland closure that made history
The headquarters move is only part of the story. In-N-Out shut down its Oakland location for good at 1 a.m. on a Monday after a final day of service in East Oakland — the first time in the chain’s 75-year history that it permanently closed a restaurant.
The company did not dress it up. In a statement released in January, Chief Operating Officer Denny Warnick attributed the closure to “ongoing issues with crime.” Customers in the drive-thru line had reportedly been robbed, with what the coverage describes as zero enforcement. The Oakland site sat near Oakland International Airport, in a corridor that has now seen a string of businesses depart.
In-N-Out has relocated stores before, but never shuttered one outright. That distinction matters. A company that has operated for three-quarters of a century without closing a single location does not walk away from a profitable store lightly. It walks away when the cost of staying — in safety, in staffing, in sheer operational friction — outweighs the revenue.
So when a California senator films himself enjoying a Double-Double as a way of signaling solidarity with his constituents, the image carries a subtext he may not have intended. He is eating at a chain that has been voting with its feet.
An authenticity problem of his own making
There is a further wrinkle. Padilla was among the prominent Democrats who called for a boycott of In-N-Out after its owner donated to Republicans in the 2024 election, per American Thinker. The same outlet argues that Padilla’s attempt to portray himself as a regular Californian runs into the fact that he did not use the chain’s well-known ordering shorthand — “animal style” — for the grilled onions he requested, a detail the piece treats as evidence that the visit was less habitual than staged.
Whether or not one reads that much into a burger order, the broader pattern is hard to miss. Politicians of both parties have long used local institutions as props, and voters have long been savvy to it. What made this instance notable is that the prop itself has become a data point in the argument against the policies Padilla defends.
The replies, as American Thinker put it, were not “quite the response he probably thought it would draw.” That is the risk of building a message around a brand whose own leadership has publicly explained why it is pulling up stakes.
None of this settles the underlying policy debate over taxes, regulation, and public safety in California. But it does illustrate how quickly a symbolic gesture can be turned against the person making it — especially when the symbol has already spoken for itself. For Padilla, the takeaway may be simpler than any policy argument: if you are going to use a business as a campaign ad, it helps to check whether that business still wants to be there.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/boobwatch-california-sen-alex-padilla-unwittingly-highlights-company-that-fled-his-state/