During a Tuesday interview with CNN, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was asked by anchor Jake Tapper to respond to the breaking news that former President Donald Trump could face a federal indictment for his role in instigating the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
DeSantis’ response was a revealing one.
“If [special prosecutor] Jack Smith has evidence of criminality,” asked Tapper, “should Donald Trump be held accountable?”
“Here’s the problem,” DeSantis replied. “This country is going down the road of criminalizing political differences, and I think that’s wrong.” A few moments later, DeSantis complained about the Department of Justice and the FBI being “weaponized against people they don’t like.” Eventually, he also got around to saying that he hopes Trump won’t be indicted because it “won’t be good for the country.”
Leave aside, for now, the bigger questions about whether another Trump indictment would be good for the countryor, for that matter, good for DeSantis’ own presidential aspirations.
Focus on the first part of DeSantis’ answerthe part about how criminalizing political differences is wrong. Tapper didn’t seize on that moment, but it would have been interesting to see him follow up by asking DeSantis how that position fits with the Florida governor’s extensive track record of wielding the power of the state against those with whom he has political disagreements.
Indeed, the weaponization of the state against those on the political left is thecentral theme of DeSantis’ entire campaign. He proudly boasts that Florida is “where woke goes to die,” and has banned schools in Florida from teaching anything that state education bureaucrats might deem to be “critical race theory.” Regardless of how he might define the terms “woke” and “critical race theory,” there’s no denying that his objections to them are purely political.
You could say the same thing about DeSantis’ decision during the pandemic to ban private businesses from requiring that workers and customers wear masks. And about his ongoing feud with The Walt Disney Company, Florida’s largest employer, which has accused DeSantis of orchestrating an unconstitutional “targeted campaign of government retaliation” after Disney’s then-CEO, Bob Chapek, spoke out against DeSantis’ so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law, which banned discussions of gender identity in public elementary school classrooms (the law was later broadened to include most classrooms up to grade 12).
That’s a political disagreement about another political disagreementand in both cases, DeSantis has aimed to limit the free speech rights of his opponents. While that may not quite rise to the level of “criminalizing political differences,” which is what DeSantis accused the Justice Department of doing, DeSantis clearly has no qualms about exercising state power in political fights.
In his recent book, DeSantis makes clear that he would continue to use state power against his political opponents if elected president. “An American revival,” DeSantis writes, “requires that corporations are treated as political actors when they use their economic power to advance an ideological agenda.” Later in the same chapter, DeSantis imagines various ways in which “the political branches [of government] can protect individual freedom from stridently ideological private actors” by limiting what those private actors can do or say.
The idea that government should intervene to protect some private individuals from the free speech being exercised by other private individualsis both nonsensical and probably unconstitutional. As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf has written about DeSantis’ misunderstanding of the value of freedom: “Neither my freedom nor yours requires the state to protect us from an entertainment company urging the state legislature to repeal a bill, or a beer company putting a trans influencer on a can, or whatever else DeSantis regards as a pathology. Indeed, we remain free in part because the First Amendment prevents the state from engaging in that sort of viewpoint discrimination.”
Much of what DeSantis has done in Florida and promised to do if elevated to the presidency is jarringly at odds with his criticism on Tuesday of Trump’s pending indictment. When you line that moment up against DeSantis’ campaign rhetoric, he seems to be saying that the problem with Trump’s possible indictment is merely that the state has been weaponized against the wrong person.
But that’s the root of the contradiction at the center of DeSantis’ campaign: Advocating for greater powers to be wielded against your political foes always creates the opportunity for your political foes to wield that same power against you and your allies.
The way out of that trap is not to double down on illiberalismeven though that’s what much of the populist right sees as necessarybut to do exactly what DeSantis said on Tuesday: oppose the criminalization of political differences.
Now let’s see if he can apply that same idea more broadly.
But in a leaked recording obtained by Sky News, Chris Philp, now shadow home secretary, said Britain’s exit from the EU – and end of UK participation in the Dublin agreement which governs EU-wide asylum claims – meant they realised they “can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
Mr Philp appeared to suggest the scale of the problem surprised those in the Johnson government.
Image: Chris Philp is the shadow home secretary. Pic: Reuters
“When we did check it out… (we) found that about half the people crossing the Channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.”
In response tonight, the Tories insisted that Mr Philp was not saying the Tories did not have a plan for how to handle asylum seekers post Brexit.
Mr Philp’s comments from last month are a very different tone to 2020 when as immigration minister he seemed to be suggesting EU membership and the Dublin rules hampered asylum removals.
In August that year, he said: “The Dublin regulations do have a number of constraints in them, which makes returning people who should be returned a little bit harder than we would like. Of course, come the 1st of January, we’ll be outside of those Dublin regulations and the United Kingdom can take a fresh approach.”
Mr Philp was also immigration minister in Mr Johnson’s government so would have been following the debate closely.
Image: Philp was previously a close ally of Liz Truss. Pic: PA
In public, members of the Johnson administration were claiming this would not be an issue since asylum claims would be “inadmissible”, but gave no details on how they would actually deal with people physically arriving in the country.
A Home Office source told journalists once the UK is “no longer bound by Dublin after the transition”, then “we will be able to negotiate our own bilateral returns agreement from the end of this year”.
This did not happen immediately.
In the summer of 2020, Mr Johnson’s spokesman criticised the “inflexible and rigid” Dublin regulations, suggesting the exit from this agreement would be a welcome post-Brexit freedom. Mr Philp’s comments suggest a different view in private.
The remarks were made in a Zoom call, part of a regular series with all the shadow cabinet on 28 April, just before the local election.
Mr Philp was asked by a member why countries like France continued to allow migrants to come to the UK.
He replied: “The migrants should claim asylum in the first safe place and that under European Union regulations, which is called the Dublin 3 regulation, the first country where they are playing asylum is the one that should process their application.
“Now, because we’re out of the European Union now, we are out of the Dublin 3 regulations, and so we can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum. When we did check it out, just before we exited the EU transitional arrangements on December the 31st, 2020, we did run some checks and found that about half the people crossing the channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe.
“In Germany, France, Italy, Spain, somewhere like that, and therefore could have been returned. But now we’re out of Dublin, we can’t do that, and that’s why we need to have somewhere like Rwanda that we can send these people to as a deterrent.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Has Brexit saved the UK from tariffs?
Mr Johnson announced the Rwanda plan in April 2022 – which Mr Philp casts as the successor plan – 16 months after Britain left the legal and regulatory regime of the EU, but the plan was blocked by the European Court of Human Rights.
Successive Tory prime ministers failed to get any mandatory removals to Rwanda, and Sir Keir Starmer cancelled the programme on entering Downing Street last year, leaving the issue of asylum seekers from France unresolved.
Speaking on Sky News last weekend, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said there has been a 20% increase in migrant returns since Labour came to power, along with a 40% increase in illegal working raids and a 40% increase in arrests for illegal working.
Britain’s membership of the EU did not stop all asylum arrivals. Under the EU’s Dublin regulation, under which people should be processed for asylum in the country at which they first entered the bloc.
However, many EU countries where people first arrive, such as Italy, do not apply the Dublin rules.
The UK is not going to be able to participate again in the Dublin agreement since that is only open to full members of the EU.
Ministers have confirmed the Labour government is discussing a returns agreement with the French that would involve both countries exchanging people seeking asylum.
Asked on Sky News about how returns might work in future, the transport minister Lilian Greenwood said on Wednesday there were “discussions ongoing with the French government”, but did not say what a future deal could look like.
She told Sky News: “It’s not a short-term issue. This is going to take really hard work to tackle those organised gangs that are preying on people, putting their lives in danger as they try to cross the Channel to the UK.
“Of course, that’s going to involve conversations with our counterparts on the European continent.”
Pressed on the returns agreement, Ms Greenwood said: “I can confirm that there are discussions ongoing with the French government about how we stop this appalling and dangerous trade in people that’s happening across the English Channel.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “The Conservative Party delivered on the democratic will of this country, and left the European Union.
“The last government did have a plan and no one – including Chris – has ever suggested otherwise.
“We created new deals with France to intercept migrants, signed returns agreements with many countries across Europe, including a landmark agreement with Albania that led to small boat crossings falling by a third in 2023, and developed the Rwanda deterrent – a deterrent that Labour scrapped, leading to 2025 so far being the worst year ever for illegal channel crossings.
“However, Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp have been clear that the Conservatives must do a lot more to tackle illegal migration.
“It is why, under new leadership, we are developing g new policies that will put an end to this problem – including disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters, establishing a removals deterrent and deporting all foreign criminals.”
The Foreign Office has denied reports that David Lammy refused to pay a taxi driver who drove him and his wife from Italy to France.
An anonymous taxi driver told French media the foreign secretary became “aggressive” when he was asked to pay 700 euros (£590) of the 1,550 euro bill, with the remainder covered by the booking service.
But the government department said Mr Lammy and his spouse were in fact victims in the case and that the driver has been charged with theft after driving off with their luggage.
The incident happened when Mr Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, joined the King for a state visit to Italy in April and then took a private holiday to the Alps with his wife Nicola Green.
The taxi driver took the couple more than 600 kilometres from the town of Forli in Italy to the French ski resort of Flaine.
A source said the fee was paid up front to the transfer service but that the driver nevertheless insisted he was owed money and demanded to be paid in cash.
Ms Green, who was speaking to the driver while Mr Lammy went into the house, told police in a statement that she felt threatened and that the taxi driver had showed her a knife in his glovebox according to the PA news agency.
It is understood that after he left with their luggage, a member of the foreign secretary’s office contacted the driver to get it back, and it was deposited at a police station with a “considerable” sum of money missing from Ms Green’s bag.
The anonymous driver told French newspaper La Provence he was “the victim of assault and violence by members of a British embassy during an international transfer where they refused to pay me”.
He said he had decided to leave the passengers at their destination and went to the police, where officers found diplomatic passports and a coded briefcase in the boot of his car.
Ms Green does not have a diplomatic passport and Mr Lammy was travelling on his normal passport as it was a private trip.
Whitehall sources denied any sensitive material was in the holiday luggage.
Prosecutors opened an investigation into a “commercial dispute” in Bonneville in Haute-Savoie after the driver filed a complaint, according to French media.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We totally refute these allegations. The fare was paid in full.
“The foreign secretary and his wife are named as victims in this matter and the driver has been charged with theft.
“As there is an ongoing legal process, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Proposals have been drawn up to spend millions in deprived neighbourhoods which are most at risk of failing to meet the government’s missions, Sky News understands.
Approving the money will ultimately be a decision for the Treasury in the upcoming spending review, but it has wide support among backbench MPs who have urged the government to do for towns “what Blair and Brown did for cities” and regenerate them.
Labour MPs told Sky News austerity is the main driver of voters turning to Reform UK and investment is “absolutely critical”.
The plan is based on the findings of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (ICON), which identified 613 “mission-critical” areas that most need progress on Sir Keir Starmer’s “five missions”:the economy, crime, the NHS, clean energy and education.
The list of neighbourhoods has not been published but are largely concentrated around northern cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Sunderland and Newcastle, a report said.
Some of the most acute need is in coastal towns such as Blackpool, Clacton, and Great Yarmouth, while pockets of high deprivation have been identified in the Midlands and the south.
Clacton is the seat of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who is hoping to be Sir Keir’s main challenger at the next general election following a meteoric rise in the polls.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:20
Voters turn to Reform UK
‘Residents deserve better’
However, Labour MP for Blackpool South Chris Webb said this wasn’t about Reform – but investing in places that have been forgotten.
He told Sky News: “Coastal towns like my hometown of Blackpool have been overlooked by successive governments for too long, and it’s time to change that narrative.
“The findings of the ICON report are a wake-up call, highlighting the urgent need for investment in our communities to address the alarming levels of crime, antisocial behaviour, poverty, and the stark disparities in life expectancy.”
He said he’d be lobbying for at least £1m in funding. His residents are “understandably frustrated and angry” and “deserve better”.
Image: Chris Webb. Pic: Peter Byrne/PA
‘Investment essential to beat Reform’
The spending review, which sets all departments’ budgets for future years, will happen on 11 June. It will be Rachel Reeves’ first as chancellor and the first by a Labour government in over a decade.
Southport MP Patrick Hurley told Sky News the last Labour government “massively invested in our big cities” after the dereliction of the 1980s, “but what Blair and Brown did for our cities, it’s now on the new government to do for our towns”.
He added: “Investment in our places to restore pride, and improve the look and feel of where people live, is essential.”
Another Labour backbencher in support of the report, Jake Richards, said seats like his Rother Valley constituency had been “battered by deindustrialisation and austerity”.
“Governments of different colours have not done enough, and now social and economic decay is driving voters to Farage,” he said.
“We need a major investment programme in deprived neighbourhoods to get tough on the causes of Reform.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
What is a spending review?
ICON is chaired by former Labour minister Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top.
The report said focusing on neighbourhoods is the most efficient route to mission delivery and is likely to have more support among voters “than grandiose national visions of transformation” – pointing to the Tories’ “failed levelling up agenda”.
The last major neighbourhood policy initiative was New Labour’s “New Deal for Communities”, which funded the regeneration of 39 of England’s poorest areas.
Research suggests it narrowed inequalities on its targeted outcomes and had a cost-ratio benefit. It was scrapped by the coalition government.
Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has already announced £1.5bn “Plan for Neighbourhoods” to invest in 75 areas over the next decade, with up to £20m available for each.
A government source told Sky News expanding the programme “would be a decision for the upcoming spending review”.