Just three weeks ago, Dominic Raab was sitting in Number 10 being offered his old jobs back, after a short hiatus from government thanks to Liz Truss.
But now he has returned to government as justice secretary and deputy prime minister, he is facing questions over his conduct during his previous tenures in the roles, and at other departments too.
Sources close to Mr Raab have hit back at the claims, with a number of his Tory colleagues standing by him as “an excellent and considerate boss”.
However, as accusations continue to emerge, let’s look back at what has been reported so far:
The first claims against Mr Raab emerged on Friday in The Guardian about his stint at the MoJ between September 2021 and September 2022 under Boris Johnson.
More on Dominic Raab
Related Topics:
The newspaper said around 15 senior civil servants in his private office had been offered “respite or a route out” after his return was announced, due to concerns some were still traumatised from working for him.
Multiple MoJ sources also said he had previously created a “culture of fear” in the department, alleging he was “demeaning rather than demanding” with civil servants, and that he was “very rude and aggressive”, adding: “[He] wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
Advertisement
But a spokesperson for the department said there was “zero tolerance for bullying across the civil service”, adding: “The deputy prime minister leads a professional department, driving forward major reforms, where civil servants are valued and the level of ambition is high.”
Tomatoes and riot acts
Within hours of the story breaking, two more emerged from Mr Raab’s earlier time at the MoJ.
One in the Sun claimed he had thrown tomatoes from his salad at staff.
And another in the Mirror said he had been given the nickname “The Incinerator” because of how quickly he “burns through” employees.
But the deputy PM’s spokesman called the salad attack claim “complete nonsense” and denied a high turnover of staff in his departments.
All three of the articles also claimed the permanent secretary, Antonia Romeo, warned Mr Raab to treat staff with respect on his return, with one source, who was not in the room at the time, saying she had “read him the riot act”.
Image: Boris Johnson appointed Dominic Raab to his cabinet after he took office in 2019
On Saturday, a single source told ITV News that the Cabinet Office had been informed about concerns over Mr Raab’s behaviour when he was Brexit secretary in 2018.
The Observer picked up the story, saying a “formal expression of concern” had been sent to a senior official in the Department for Exiting the European Union, alleging “unprofessional, even bullying, conduct of the minister towards his private office”.
But the Cabinet Office told the newspaper it had “no record of any formal complaints” being passed onto them.
Surveys and support
Come Sunday, the focus fell onto Mr Raab’s time as foreign secretary, between July 2020 and September 2021.
A survey was leaked to ITV News showing eight people working in his private office at the time claimed to have been bullied or harassed at work, while 15 staff reported witnessing another person being bullied or treated unfairly.
The results were anonymous, though, so neither the perpetrator nor victim could be identified.
In response, a spokesman for Mr Raab said he had “high standards, works hard, and expects a lot from his team as well as himself”, but that he “worked well with officials” and “always acts with the utmost professionalism”.
As Rishi Sunak travelled to the G20 summit in Bali on Sunday night, he faced questions about the reappointment of Mr Raab, but insisted he did not “recognise that characterisation” of his colleague and was “unaware” of any formal complaints being made against him.
A Number 10 spokeswoman also said: “As the prime minister has said before, people in public life should treat others with consideration and respect. Those are principles that this government will stand by.
“There are established procedures by which civil servants can raise complaints. These processes allow allegations to be looked at and considered with due process and a fair hearing.”
Image: Rishi Sunak gave his support to his deputy while on a flight to Bali for the G20
When Monday rolled around, an interview with a former top official at the Foreign Office during Mr Raab’s tenure set tongues wagging again.
Former permanent secretary Lord Simon McDonald was asked on LBC whether the previous days’ bullying allegations were plausible, and he replied: “Yes.”
He added: “Dominic Raab is one of the most driven people I ever worked for, he was a tough boss.
“Maybe they are euphemisms, but I worked closely with him and I didn’t see everything that happened.”
Within hours, there was another story from The Guardian, claiming Mr Raab had been warned about his behaviour towards officials at the Foreign Office on multiple occasions by none other than Lord McDonald.
The paper also alleged that Lord McDonald had several informal conversations with the head of the propriety and ethics team at the Cabinet Office about him between 2019 and 2020 about the issue.
A spokesman for Mr Raab told The Guardian: “Dominic had frequent discussions with his permanent secretary at the Foreign Office about how best to run the department and ensure that it delivered to the highest standard in challenging circumstances such as during COVID.”
Behaviour and high standards
Tuesday and Lord McDonald was back on the airwaves, talking to Times Radio about Mr Raab. He went further than in his LBC interview, saying many colleagues were “scared” to go into the then foreign secretary’s office when he was in charge.
The peer said Mr Raab “was not aware of the impact of his behaviour on the people working for him and couldn’t be made to see that impact”, adding: “Colleagues did not complain to me formally, it was kind of their professional pride to cope, but many were scared to go into his office.”
And he said the minister’s defence was that “he treated everybody in the building in the same way – he was as abrasive and controlling with junior ministers and senior officials as he was with his private secretaries.”
But again, Mr Raab’s spokesman insisted he had “acted with professionalism and integrity in all of his government roles”, adding: “He has an excellent record of driving positive change in multiple government departments by working well with officials.
“He holds everyone, and most of all himself, to the high standards that the British people would expect of their government.”
Image: Lord McDonald was the top civil servant at the Foreign Office during Mr Raab’s tenure.
There was another accusation coming his way – this time from Labour’s Lisa Nandy, who shadowed Mr Raab when he was at the Foreign Office.
She told Sky News she had heard “a number of rumours this was a pattern of behaviour”, adding: “It’s been something of an open secret in Westminster for the last few years there is a problem in the justice department, there was a problem in the Foreign Office – it was apparently particularly directed towards women.
“I think it’s really damning that Rishi Sunak has appointed Dominic Raab to this post knowing that this is potentially an issue.”
But Mr Raab’s spokesman “categorically” denied the allegation, while his team said suggestions he has a woman problem was “nonsense”.
A source close to Mr Raab said: “This is baseless mudslinging with no grounding in reality, and undermines serious cases of bullying and inappropriate behaviour.”
The investigation
Wednesday means Prime Minister’s Questions and, as Mr Sunak’s deputy, it is down to him to stand in while the boss is away at the G20 summit.
But the drama came early as two hours before his appearance, he sent out a tweet, revealing he had written to the PM to request an independent investigation into two formal complaints that had been made against him – one at the Foreign Office and another at the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Raab said he had “never tolerated bullying, and always sought to reinforce and empower the teams of civil servants working in my respective departments”.
But he promised to “cooperate fully” with the investigation and “respect whatever outcome you decide”.
Mr Sunak replied, agreeing this was “the right course of action”, adding: “Integrity, professionalism and accountability are core values of this government. It is right that these matters are investigated fully.”
Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.
They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.
It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.
Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”
He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”
However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”
Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”
Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war
Seven hours is a long time in US politics.
At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.
At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.
There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.
It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.
Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?
Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?
The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.
Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.
On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.
More tariffs ‘could happen’
Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.
“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.
Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.
India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.
Image: Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.
In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.
He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:11
Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy
‘The war must end’
Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.
He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”
Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”
He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.
Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.
The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.
Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.
The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.
Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.
NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.
In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASAstaff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.
Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.
He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.
“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.
Image: Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.
But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.
When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”
Why use a nuclear reactor?
Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.
This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.
Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.
Image: An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.
Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.
To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.
But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.
“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.
So, what’s the catch?
While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.
“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.
“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:55
Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay
Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.
NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.
Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.
Is this the new space race?
Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).
The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.
“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.
However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.
“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.
“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.
“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”