New Florida House Speaker defends bucking DeSantis over immigration legislation
Two weeks ago, Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez landed at the airport in Tallahassee and was greeted by a voicemail from Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had called to let him know that he was planning to beckon lawmakers back to the Capitol to create new laws to help the Trump administration carry out a sweeping deportation program.
'I called him and he did not answer,' Perez told the Herald/Times. 'And he did not call me back.'
Eight minutes later, the governor announced that he would call a special session for Jan. 27 — launching a nationally-watched fight among Florida Republicans over immigration and how best to respond to President Donald Trump's attempt to identify and deport immigrants who are in the country illegally.
The fight has exposed a huge rift between most state elected Republicans and the governor from their own party, and framed the first days of Perez's young tenure as one of Florida's most influential politicians. Since then, the Legislature — once a vehicle for DeSantis' policy agenda — has rejected the governor's proposals and moved to strip him of much of his immigration-enforcement powers by passing a bill that is likely to be vetoed.
Perez, a Kendall area resident who represents a western Miami-Dade district, says a little communication could have gone a long way to preventing the whole imbroglio.
'When I tell you that this could have been avoided if communication were an option, it's not a fallacy. It's reality,' the Miami Republican told the Herald/Times on Wednesday afternoon
It is against this backdrop that Perez — a 37-year-old attorney first elected to the House in 2017 — is starting his first of two years in power as the speaker of the Florida House. With a Republican supermajority that can pass legislation without concern for Democrats' positions, he is pushing his chamber forward with a new chief critic, the governor, who up until this week faced little challenge from Republicans in the Legislature.
Perez is working in lockstep with Senate President Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, and says they drafted an immigration bill with 'positive input' from the White House. The bill would increase penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes and would make Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson — a statewide Republican elected official — the state's chief immigration officer, empowering him to oversee the state's immigration enforcement efforts under Trump.
The bill also includes more than $500 million to help local law enforcement officers get the training they need to help federal immigration agents and reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for the cost of sharing detention beds with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
If the governor were to veto their bill, Perez did not rule out trying to override the governor's veto.
'All options are on the table,' he said.
READ MORE: 'Not good at this.' Why lawmakers say they want to strip DeSantis' immigration powers
But he said the goal is for Republicans to be able to address the issue of immigration.
'I will tell you, I do believe that the governor wants to solve this crisis just as much as I do, just as much as President Albritton does,' Perez said. 'At the end of the day, he is a co-equal branch of government. '
The question is how they will solve the issue, he said.
Facing off a well-known Republican governor
As Republican leaders wrangle with the governor over the immigration proposal, DeSantis has used his access to an influential conservative media ecosystem in an effort to sway the court of public opinion.
Leveraging a national profile, DeSantis has railed against the Legislature's proposal on Fox News and conservative radio shows, and on social media has said the bill 'fails to honor our promises to voters, fails to meet the moment, and would actually weaken state immigration enforcement' in Florida.
The bill — nicknamed the TRUMP Act — includes several changes to the state's immigration enforcement laws, but the marquee proposal would transfer much of the governor's immigration oversight authority. DeSantis, who has made a name for himself as an immigration hardliner in Republican politics, has accused lawmakers of trying to weaken immigration enforcement in the state by removing those powers from him.
Perez maintained on Wednesday that the immigration bill the Legislature is pushing is stronger than the governor's proposal, but recognized that he is going up against one of the most well-known Republicans in the country.
'We are doing what we believe is right, which is following President Trump and making sure that illegal immigration no longer is the greatest crisis in this country,' Perez said. 'Although I can't message it to the masses the way he can, I feel very comfortable with the position of the Legislature.'
The immigration bill was done in collaboration with the Trump administration, Perez said. He would not say who he personally spoke to in the administration, but said that the provision in the bill received 'positive input' from the White House.
Asked if DeSantis vetoing the bill would mean he would be going against the White House recommendations, Perez said: 'That's for him to answer.'
FLORIDA POLITICS: DeSantis is likely to veto the immigration bill. Does the Senate have the votes to override it?
Moving forward
In a speech to the Florida House on Wednesday night, Perez thanked state representatives for passing a bill that he called a 'game changer' and for withstanding public scrutiny from 'activists' and 'a lot of paid bots on social media trying to gaslight you' — a veiled shot at the army of aggressive social-media users who flock to the governor's side.
'Threatening others to get your way isn't leadership, it's immaturity. The people of our state deserve better,' Perez said in his final remarks on the House floor.
In the interview Wednesday, Perez said he wants to send a message to members that he does not plan to 'lead with ego' as speaker of the House.
'I will never lead by my own self-interests or the eagerness for a headline,' he said. 'If it is not in the best interest of Floridians, I won't support it.'
Moving forward, he said his agenda will include addressing issues in Florida's property insurance market, housing prices and education policies. While he did not have specifics to unveil as of Wednesday, he said that the state has not 'reached our end point' on what can be done about the escalating cost of property insurance.
'It is still a huge issue,' he said. 'But how we solve it is a question that we're still answering collectively as a Legislature.'
Perez also said he will be interested in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used effectively in all aspects of state government, including the executive branch.
'There's no one that is going to get a pass, from the Florida House at least, on whether or not they are spending taxpayer dollars efficiently,' Perez said. 'That's work that we have to get to.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director
The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump's late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet. The Smithsonian's statement said the organization's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, "has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian." The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump. The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump's social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' The Smithsonian's statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: "In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity." It continues: "Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution." The Smithsonian's move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture. The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled "Restoring truth and sanity to American history." That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that 'divide Americans.' "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian's 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington. The order followed Trump's ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center. One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center's board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian's board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution," the statement Monday read. "As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. "To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes." Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
