In DeSantis feud with Republicans over Hope Florida, there's more to the story
Set aside the issues lawmakers from both parties have raised with the nearly $10 million in Medicaid settlement money that went to the Hope Florida Foundation — a transfer some Republicans have suggested was illegal. Set aside the Hope Florida Foundation's missing paperwork, or that Gov. Ron DeSantis wanted Hope Florida enshrined in Florida law despite a lack of accountability. Even set aside the House abruptly ending its official inquiry into the foundation on Thursday.
None of that fully answers this question: Why did Republicans go so hard after the governor?
Two years ago, dozens of Republicans in the House, including many still serving today, endorsed DeSantis for president. House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, was among them.
This month alone, DeSantis has taken numerous shots at Perez, calling his leadership 'terrible' and 'rotten' and saying House leadership is 'colluding with the left, they are colluding with the media to try to sabotage all the great success that Florida has had over these last six years.'
What happened?
The Tampa Bay Times interviewed more than a dozen lobbyists, lawmakers and political operatives to try to answer that question.
Those sympathetic to DeSantis' side say it's all political, part of the 2026 midterm jockeying. Others say House Republicans are tired of being steamrolled by a governor who runs Tallahassee not with a deft personal touch but with an iron fist.
'This seems like a story about me versus the governor. And that could not be further from the truth,' Perez wrote in an email via a spokesperson. 'The Legislature and the governor are meant to be partners, check and balances in a representative government. This is not about power — absolutely not. It's about how we all work together for outcomes that serve the people of Florida."
Under Perez, the House has moved to check DeSantis' power numerous times. Lawmakers publicly rejected the governor's immigration proposal during a high-profile special session. They passed a bill limiting his power to pick university presidents and voted to overturn some of his budget vetoes.
The House's renewed assertiveness has put DeSantis at odds with lawmakers who used to be his biggest allies.
Rep. Alex Andrade, R-Pensacola, endorsed DeSantis for president in 2023. He's sponsored the governor's pet bills, including one that would have loosened defamation protections for news outlets. He supported other high-profile moves by the governor, such as his decision to fly Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Massachusetts.
Even while cheering on DeSantis, there was tension behind the scenes, according to Andrade. He said DeSantis' team 'threatened' him into endorsing the governor for president, not-so-subtly reminding lawmakers that DeSantis could always veto projects for those who don't toe the line. (DeSantis' office did not respond to requests for comment.)
'I've always known that he's selfish and sometimes condescending,' Andrade said.
Andrade kept supporting the governor because they aligned on policy. But in recent years, as DeSantis' national profile has grown, he's become more insular, and things have started to slip through the cracks, Andrade said.
The governor's inner circle was never large, but the Hope Florida scandal underscores how small it's become. The same man who ran the governor's presidential campaign, James Uthmeier, was also his chief of staff — and the person he deputized to defeat Amendment 3, which would have allowed the sale of recreational marijuana.
Andrade, who has led the charge on the House's investigation into Hope Florida, has alleged that Uthmeier told two advocacy groups to solicit grants from the Hope Florida Foundation. The foundation had just gotten millions in an unrelated state settlement. After the groups received the money from Hope Florida, they sent millions of dollars to a political committee controlled by Uthmeier that was created to defeat Amendment 3.
If Uthmeier orchestrated these transactions, they would have amounted to a stunning series of state-funded political maneuvers from the then-chief of staff. Uthmeier is now attorney general.
To Andrade, the governor's team played fast and loose with millions in state money.
Those in DeSantis' orbit view the fight with House members differently. Some Republicans have never been true fans of the governor, they say. They accuse Andrade of acting not in the public interest but on behalf of the marijuana companies that lost at the ballot box in November.
Now that DeSantis is on his way out of office — he's termed out in 2027 — some politicians see an opportunity, the governor's supporters say.
'The speaker wants more power. Where is he going to get it? He's going to take it from the governor,' said Rep. Mike Caruso, R-Delray Beach, one of the few remaining vocal DeSantis supporters in the House. 'No Floridian voted on this power grab.'
The speaker, who is picked by the House's members, has considerable sway over his or her colleagues by determining what bills get heard, how committees get staffed and whether local budget requests get fulfilled.
Perez said he's empowered representatives to express themselves this session. But Caruso disputes that, saying Perez is forcing others in the House to support him in the battle against DeSantis. The way he tells it, Caruso has paid a steep price for siding with the governor over Perez.
Fourth-term Republicans like Caruso usually get to run committees and pass numerous consequential bills. After he sided with DeSantis during a special session earlier this year on immigration, Caruso was stripped of his position as committee chairperson. None of his bills have gotten so much as a committee hearing this session.
Caruso blamed Perez.
'We often shuffle members around in committee positions based on a member's interests and skill set,' Perez wrote in an email.
So is the House pushing back on DeSantis to establish a culture of good governance? Or is there something else at play?
Again, depends on whom you ask.
Hope Florida is undeniably politically charged. DeSantis needs a way to stay nationally relevant ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run. One option is to have his wife, Casey, win the Governor's Mansion in 2026.
That makes Hope Florida a rich target for those looking to take DeSantis down a peg. It's Casey DeSantis' signature initiative.
The program, as described by the governor, aligns perfectly with the conservative vision for government. It's meant to help Floridians get off of government assistance by connecting them with nonprofits like churches and other community aid organizations.
By casting suspicion on the program's effectiveness, Florida House leaders are removing a springboard from which Casey DeSantis could launch her gubernatorial campaign. (Republican U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, who has announced his candidacy for governor, has been mum on the scandal.)
'I think it's all just to throw water on the idea that the governor's wife, our first lady, Casey DeSantis, might run for governor,' Caruso said. 'It's to taint her persona.'
DeSantis' usual critics have pounced on the Hope Florida kerfuffle. Roger Stone and Laura Loomer, two far-right Donald Trump loyalists who have never forgiven DeSantis for challenging Trump in 2024, have each had choice words for the governor on social media.
DeSantis' defenders may have their own political motivations, too. Caruso, who's termed out of office, has been rumored to be under consideration for the open lieutenant governor spot. (Caruso said he is interested in that job, but denied that's why he's sticking up for the governor.)
Uthmeier wants a full term as attorney general. He's denied wrongdoing and defended the DeSantis team.
House Republicans insist they don't care about 2026. Perez said the idea that he is trying to undermine the first lady is 'absolutely false.'
Andrade echoed that sentiment. But even in doing so, he took a shot at Casey DeSantis.
'I don't care if she runs for governor,' he said. 'I would say her track record on executive administration is terrible if she's claiming Hope Florida as her track record.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's time to save the whales again
Diving in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay recently, I watched a tubby 200-pound harbor seal follow a fellow diver, nibbling on his flippers. The diver, a graduate student, was using sponges to collect DNA samples from the ocean floor. Curious seals, he told me, can be a nuisance. When he bags his sponges and places them in his collection net, they sometimes bite into them, puncturing the bags and spoiling his samples. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coming closer than 50 yards to seals and dolphins is considered harassment, but they're free to harass you, which seems only fair given the centuries of deadly whaling and seal hunting that preceded a generational shift in how we view the world around us. The shift took hold in 1969, the year a massive oil spill coated the Santa Barbara coastline and the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, caught fire. Those two events helped spark the first Earth Day, in 1970, and the shutdown of America's last whaling station in 1971. Protecting the environment from pollution and from loss of wilderness and wildlife quickly moved from a protest issue to a societal ethic as America's keystone environmental legislation was passed at around the same time, written by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) , the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), which goes further than the Endangered Species Act (1973) in protecting all marine mammals, not just threatened ones, from harassment, killing or capture by U.S. citizens in U.S. waters and on the high seas. All these 'green' laws and more are under attack by the Trump administration, its congressional minions and longtime corporate opponents of environmental protections, including the oil and gas industry. Republicans' disingenuous argument for weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act is that the legislation has worked so well in rebuilding wildlife populations that it's time to loosen regulations for a better balance between nature and human enterprise. When it comes to marine mammal populations, that premise is wrong. On July 22, at a House Natural Resources subcommittee meeting, Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that would scale back the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, his proposal would limit the ability of the federal government to take action against 'incidental take,' the killing of whales, dolphins and seals by sonic blasts from oil exploration, ship and boat strikes or by drowning as accidental catch (also known as bycatch) in fishing gear. Begich complained that marine mammal protections interfere with 'essential projects like energy development, port construction, and even fishery operations.' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, calls the legislation a 'death sentence' for marine mammals. It's true that the marine mammal law has been a success in many ways. Since its passage, no marine mammal has gone extinct and some species have recovered dramatically. The number of northern elephant seals migrating to California beaches to mate and molt grew from 10,000 in 1972 to about 125,000 today. There were an estimated 11,000 gray whales off the West Coast when the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law; by 2016, the population peaked at 27,000. But not all species have thrived. Historically there were about 20,000 North Atlantic right whales off the Eastern Seaboard. They got their name because they were the 'right' whales to harpoon — their bodies floated for easy recovery after they were killed. In 1972 they were down to an estimated 350 individuals. After more than half a century of federal legal protection, the population is estimated at 370. They continue to suffer high mortality rates from ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and other causes, including noise pollution and greater difficulty finding prey in warming seas. Off Florida, a combination of boat strikes and algal pollution threaten some 8,000-10,000 manatees. The population's recovery (from about 1,000 in 1979) has been significant enough to move them off the endangered species list in 2017, but since the beginning of this year alone, nearly 500 have died. Scientists would like to see them relisted, but at least they're still covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A 2022 study in the Gulf of Mexico found that in areas affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 12 years earlier, the dolphin population had declined 45% and that it might take 35 years to recover. In the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, loss of sea ice is threatening polar bears (they're considered marine mammals), bowhead and beluga whales, walruses, ringed seals and harp seals. On the West Coast the number of gray whales — a Marine Mammal Act success story and now a cautionary tale — has crashed by more than half in the last decade to fewer than 13,000, according to a recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the nation's lead ocean agency, is an endangered species in its own right in the Trump era). Declining prey, including tiny shrimp-like amphipods, in the whales' summer feeding grounds in the Arctic probably caused by warming water are thought to be a major contributor to their starvation deaths and reduced birth rates. The whale's diving numbers are just one signal that climate change alone makes maintaining the Marine Mammal Act urgent. Widespread marine heat waves linked to a warming ocean are contributing to the loss of kelp forests that sea otters and other marine mammals depend on. Algal blooms off California, and for the first time ever, Alaska, supercharged by warmer waters and nutrient pollution, are leading to the deaths of thousands of dolphins and sea lions. What the Trump administration and its antiregulation, anti-environmental-protection supporters fail to recognize is that the loss of marine mammals is an indicator for the declining health of our oceans and the natural world we depend on and are a part of. This time, saving the whales will be about saving ourselves. David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. His next book, 'Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp,' is scheduled to be published in 2026.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Slams High-Profile Democrats For Being Too 'Afraid' To Appear On His Show
Bill Maher on Friday's 'Real Time' commended past Republican guests for coming on his show — and slammed numerous high-profile Democrats he said were too 'afraid' to do the same. Maher made an exception for Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), who appeared as recently as March. Maher named several Democrats in his monologue, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He first poked fun at Newsom, however, for his 'perfect hair.' Related: 'Hey, at least Gavin comes here,' said Maher. 'People ask me all the time, 'Why haven't you ever had Hillary or Bill Clinton on? Why didn't you have Kamala on during the last campaign?' You think we don't ask? We ask these people every week. They say no.' Maher noted that it took eight years 'and a petition' to get Obama on his show in 2016. 'And these are people, all people, I voted for,' the 'Real Time' host continued. 'Think about that: they're afraid to come on the show of a guy who voted for them. The Republicans? They show up, and when they do, they take their beating like a man.' Related: Maher went on to play a montage of him sparring with past Republican guests, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Trump's former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Trump aide Steve Bannon. He then reiterated that he 'would love' to have more notable Democrats on the show, specifically naming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani. 'But I can't subpoena the guests,' joked Maher. 'And I can't fix that what the Democrats are scared of, more than anything else… is being primaried from the far-left, even though most Democrats are not far-left. They're mild-mannered and moderate, at least in my bathhouse.' Warren has notably appeared on the show six times between 2009 and 2017. Other notable members of the Democratic Party who have sat down with Maher include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Maher appeared to suggest on Friday that Democrats might win more elections if they came on his show. He cited former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who urged her party in April to shed their 'weak and woke' reputation and 'fucking retake the flag.' Related: 'She's right,' said Maher. 'People vote on instinct. They can smell fear a swing state away.' Related... Gavin Newsom Says California Will Redraw Its 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS' In Hilarious All-Caps Post Mocking Trump Trump Reacts To Hillary Clinton's Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Endorsement Trump Goes After 'Nutjob' Senator Elizabeth Warren: 'She's Got To Take A Drug Test'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
PARKER: Companies on the move to escape California blues
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is upset with Texas. There's a reason he should be upset. California companies are pulling up in droves and moving to the Lone Star State and elsewhere. But that isn't what's bothering him. Newsom cares about politics and power, not markets and business. He's upset that the Texas state legislature is moving to redistricting, which could add up to five Republican seats in 2026. So, Newsom wants to redistrict, which could add another five Democratic seats in California. California's congressional districts are already gerrymandered to death to favour Democrats — 17% of the State's 52 congressional seats are held by Republicans in a state in which Donald Trump garnered 38% of the popular vote in 2024. In ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010, Californians amended the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission, with five representatives from each party and four unaffiliated, to take rote politics out of the process. But removing rote politics for Gavin Newsom is like asking the L.A. Dodgers to show up for a game without bats, balls and gloves. Newsom wants to circumvent the commission by putting new district maps for 2026 before voters in a special ballot initiative this November. It is too bad that Newsom's obsession is with accumulating power rather than improving his state. Just listen to Orange County resident and much-followed economist and blogger Scott Grannis. From Grannis' latest post, which he calls California Leavin': 'Between 2020 and 2025, approximately 500 companies have moved their headquarters out of California or shifted significant operations elsewhere, with a notable spike in relocations since 2019. From 2018 to 2021 alone, the Hoover Institution reported 352 companies relocating their headquarters out of the state.' Grannis continues: 'Government has become increasingly lazy and dysfunctional; the roads are a mess, traffic is the bane of everyday existence, taxes and regulations are oppressive, and modest cottages start at $1 million.' U-Haul annually reports its U-Haul Growth Index. This ranks the 50 states according to 'each state's net gain (or loss) of customers utilizing one-way U-Haul equipment in a calendar year.' Which state was first in one-way departures out of the state for the last five years? Yes, you're right. California Leavin'. And what state was number two in the nation in arrivals into the state in 2024? Yes, Texas, the Lone Star State. Texas has ranked first or second every year since 2016. According to of the top five cities in the U.S. with new corporate headquarters openings from 2018 to 2024, three are in Texas — Dallas, Austin and Houston. The other two are in Nashville and Phoenix. All five are in red states in 2024. In the top five cities for corporate headquarters closures from 2018 to 2024, three of the five are in California. San Diego, Greater Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. The other two are Chicago and New York City. All five are in blue states in 2024. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies documents which states had the largest migration gains from 2014 to 2024 and which states had the largest losses. Of the top 10 that gained over this period, seven of the 10 were red states in 2024. Of the top 10 losers over this period, seven of the 10 were blue states in 2024. Needless to say, Texas is in the top 10 gainers. It is a state that is booming because it provides a tax and regulatory environment conducive to those who want to work and grow. It makes all the sense in the world, with the huge influx of businesses and people, that the Texas population landscape has changed dramatically since the last census. There is a rationale for the redistricting initiative in Texas. But in California, Newsom just wants to institutionalize failure. Let's hope, in the interest of Californians, that he doesn't manage to get this misguided initiative on the ballot. And if he does, that it fails.
