The story Donald Trump tells about himselfand to himselfhas always been one of domination. It runs through the canonical texts of his personal mythology. In The Art of the Deal, he filled page after page with examples of his hard-nosed negotiating tactics. On The Apprentice, he lorded over a boardroom full of supplicants competing for his approval. And at his campaign rallies, he routinely regales crowds with tales of strong-arming various world leaders in the Oval Office.
This image of Trump has always been dubious. Those boardroom scenes were, after all, reality-TV contrivances; those stories in his book were, by his own ghostwriters account, exaggerated in many cases to make Trump appear savvier than he was. And theres been ample reporting to suggest that many of the world leaders with whom Trump interacted as president saw him more as an easily manipulated mark than as a domineering statesman to be feared.
The truth is that Trump, for all of his tough-guy posturing, spent most of his career failing to push people around and bend them to his will.
That is, until he started dealing with Republican politicians.
For nearly a decade now, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to make congressional Republicans do what he wants. He threatens them. He bullies them. He extracts from them theatrical displays of devotionand if they cross him, he makes them pay. If there is one arena of American power in which Trump has been able to actually be the merciless alpha he played on TVand there may, indeed, be only oneit is Republican politics. His influence was on full display this week, when he derailed a bipartisan border-security bill reportedly because he wants to campaign on the immigration crisis this year.
David Frum: The GOPs true priority
Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to Trump, has observed this dynamic with some amusement. Its funny, he told me in a recent phone interview. In the business world and in the entertainment world, I dont think Donald was able to intimidate people as much.
He pointed to Trumps salary negotiations with NBC during Trumps Apprentice years. Jeff Zucker, who ran the network at the time, has said that Trump once came to him demanding a raise. At the time, Trump was making $40,000 an episode, but he wanted to make as much as the entire cast of Friends combined: $6 million an episode. Zucker countered with $60,000. When Trump balked, Zucker said hed find someone else to host the show. The next day, according to Zucker, Trumps lawyer called to accept the $60,000. (A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)
Contrast that with the power Trump wields on Capitol Hillhow he can kill a bill or tank a speakership bid with a single post on social media; how high-ranking congressmen are so desperate for his approval that theyll task staffers to sort through packs of Starbursts and pick out just the pinks and reds so Trump can be presented with his favorite flavors.
I just remember that thered be a lot of stuff that didnt go his way, Nunberg told me, referring to Trumps business career. But he has all these senators in the fetal position! They do whatever he wants.
Why exactly congressional Republicans have proved so much more pliable than anyone else Trump has contended with is a matter of interpretation. One explanation is that Trump has simply achieved much more success in politics than he ever did, relatively speaking, in New York City real estate or on network TV. For all of his tabloid omnipresence, Trump never had anything like the presidential bully pulpit.
From the January/February 2024 issue: Loyalists, lapdogs, and cronies
It stands to reason that [when] the president and leader of your party is pushing for something thats whats going to happen, a former chief of staff to a Republican senator, who requested anonymity in order to candidly describe former colleagues thinking, told me. Take away the office and put him back in a business setting, where facts and core principles matter, and it doesnt surprise me that it wasnt as easy.
But, of course, Trump is not the president anymoreand there is also something unique about the sway he continues to have over Republicans on Capitol Hill. In his previous life, Trump had viewers, readers, fansbut he never commanded a movement that could end the careers of the people on the other side of the negotiating table.
And Trumpwhose animal instinct for weakness is one of his defining traitsseemed to intuit something early on about the psychology of the Republicans he would one day reign over.
Nunberg told me about a speech he drafted for Trump in 2015 that included this line about the Republican establishment: Theyre good at keeping their jobs, not their promises. When Trump read it, he chuckled. Its so true, he said, according to Nunberg. Thats all they care about. (Nunberg was eventually fired from Trumps 2016 campaign.)
This ethos of job preservation at all costs is not a strictly partisan phenomenon in Washingtonnor is it new. As I reported in my recent biography of Mitt Romney, the Utah senator was surprised, when he arrived in Congress, by the enormous psychic currency his colleagues attached to their positions. One senator told Romney that his first consideration when voting on any bill should be Will this help me win reelection?
From the November 2023 issue: What Mitt Romney saw in the Senate
But the Republican Party of 2015 was uniquely vulnerable to a hostile takeover by someone like Trump. Riven by years of infighting and ideological incoherence, and plagued by a growing misalignment between its base and its political class, the GOP was effectively one big institutional power vacuum. The litmus tests kept changing. The formula for getting reelected was obsolete. Republicans with solidly conservative records, such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, were getting taken out in primaries by obscure Tea Party upstarts.
To many elected Republicans, it probably felt like an answer to their prayers when a strongman finally parachuted in and started telling them what to do. Maybe his orders were reckless and contradictory. But as long as you did your best to look like you were obeying, you could expect to keep winning your primaries.
As for Trump, its easy to see the ongoing appeal of this arrangement. The Apprentice was canceled long ago, and the Manhattan-real-estate war stories have worn thin. Republicans in Congress might be the only ostensibly powerful people in America who will allow him to boss them around, humiliate them, and assert unbridled dominance over them. Theyve made the myth true. How could he possibly walk away now?
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”.