Ron DeSantis loses again to Disney


Mickey and Minnie Mouse take part in a press conference for the European premiere of the “Disney 100” exhibition on April 17, 2023, in Munich. | Sven Hoppe/picture alliance via Getty Images

The Florida governor’s fight with Disney has become a political liability. But he can’t afford to retreat.

Florida Republican Gov. DeSantis has been foiled by Disney once again.

The new board DeSantis appointed to oversee the company’s Orlando theme parks has discovered a new wrinkle in its plans. The board’s chairman said Wednesday that another “11th hour agreement” was signed before the board took over that allows Disney to set its own utility rates for its resorts through 2032. By that time, DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run for reelection in 2026, will be long gone.

It’s the latest development in the ever-expanding culture war between DeSantis and Disney executives, who angered the governor last year after they publicly opposed his “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prevents teachers from talking about LGBTQ+ issues or people. That fight escalated last month when it came to light that Disney had managed to quietly disenfranchise the new board without DeSantis’s allies taking notice, and has continued as the governor tries to clamp down on the company in retaliation.

DeSantis’s efforts to punish Disney for being “woke” have become a political headache, with his potential 2024 Republican presidential primary opponents, including former President Donald Trump and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, using it to go on the attack. But at this point, DeSantis is probably in too deep to retreat.

“Once you pick a fight with a bully, even though it starts to get troubling, you probably need to finish it,” said Robert Cahaly, senior strategist and pollster at the Trafalgar Group and a former Republican political consultant. “He needs to be able to say, ‘I did everything I could do. I didn’t quit because it got hot.’”

DeSantis has been trying to redeem himself in a public relations battle that he has so far been losing. Earlier this week, he announced new legislation to require additional inspections at Disney theme park rides and its monorail connecting its hotels and theme parks. He also suggested the new state board could convert land in and around the Orlando theme parks into a state park, a competing amusement park, or a state prison — and that the board should investigate raising taxes on Disney.

Meanwhile, Disney has been planning its first event to celebrate Pride Month at its California theme park, complete with themed entertainment and specialty menu items, in a return to the issue that first drew the governor’s ire. It follows the revelation last month that Disney lawyers schemed to strip the new board, appointed with DeSantis loyalists, of most of its governing powers.

DeSantis’s efforts to strike back might be enough to appease Republicans, who are highly animated against so-called “woke corporations” that embrace progressive racial and social justice policies. Cahaly said that Trafalgar’s polls have found most Republicans say they would be less likely to do business with such companies and less likely to buy their products, as evidenced by the recent conservative boycott of Bud Light.

“They don’t want corporations to be conservative,” Cahaly said. “They just want them to be nonpartisan and to stay out of politics.”

But DeSantis’s political opponents still see his feud with Disney as a vulnerability. “I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney,” said Christie, who is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks on whether to run, in an interview with Semafor Tuesday. Trump wrote in a post on his social network Truth Social that DeSantis is being “absolutely destroyed by Disney” and suggested that the company would be justified in leaving Florida.

Together with DeSantis’s drop in the polls, speculation in GOP circles that he may have waited too long to formally announce a 2024 run, and that even Florida Republicans are endorsing Trump over their governor, the continued tit-for-tat with Disney may stunt DeSantis’s presidential candidacy before it has even formally begun.

DeSantis has made his fight with Disney a pillar of his political identity

A key part of DeSantis’s pitch for the presidency is his willingness to take on so-called “woke” corporations, with Disney as the primary example. Being seen as having been defeated by such a corporation would weaken his candidacy. And it could boost other Republican candidates with more experience using anti-woke rhetoric to their advantage, like right-wing activist Vivek Ramaswamy, who kicked off his campaign in February and has been dubbed “the CEO of Anti-Woke, Inc.” by the New Yorker.

The governor’s battle with Disney is the subject of an entire chapter titled “The Magic Kingdom of Woke Corporatism” in DeSantis’s latest book, The Courage to Be Free. He writes about how he got married at Disney World, something he says was really his wife’s idea, not knowing that he would later be “squaring off against Disney in a political battle that would reverberate across the nation.”

DeSantis describes corporations like Disney as caving to the “woke gender theory” being pushed by the media by taking a stand on issues such as equal rights for LGBTQ+ Americans that he thinks they shouldn’t get involved in. And he writes about how he orchestrated a surprise session to eliminate Disney’s special tax status, which had allowed it to develop and maintain its properties in Orlando with relative independence — the “Florida equivalent of the shot heard ‘round the world.”

“Leaders must be willing to stand up and fight back when big corporations make the mistake, as Disney did, of using their economic might to advance a political agenda,” DeSantis writes.

That coup, of course, crumbled, with Disney turning the loss of its status into a win for the company. DeSantis claimed Tuesday that Disney has tried to “circumvent … the will of the people” in undermining the new board of the company’s special tax district. And his oversight board will reportedly soon unveil its plans to strip Disney of the powers it recently granted itself.

But it’s not clear that Florida voters ever really wanted DeSantis to take on Disney. The governor may have won reelection by nearly 20 percentage points and ushered in a red wave in Florida in 2022. But Disney, the state’s largest employer, still proved more popular than him across multiple polls in the last year.

Still, it’s consistent with DeSantis’s attempts to position himself as a leader in culture war battles including the one with Disney, but also on restricting abortion access and loosening gun restrictions.

“If he’s going to come across as a social issue warrior, he can’t give up a social issue fight,” Cahaly said.

Related articles

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.

‘Haven’t seen it’: Mike Johnson roasted for playing dumb on whatever reporters ask



House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doesn't appear to know, and he likely hasn't seen whatever video, speech, or statement reporters want to ask him about.

For the past several weeks, as reporters peppered Johnson with questions about President Donald Trump's cognitive decline, violence at the hands of ICE and other federal agents, and even things said by members of his own caucus. He answered simply that he doesn't know and hasn't seen it, heard it or examined it.

A Religious News Service reporter caught Johnson in a fib, while others couldn't help but notice that Johnson doesn't seem to know anything about anything.

Asked about a pastor being shot in the face by a pepper round by federal agents, Johnson responded, “I can't comment on any of those instances. I haven't seen or heard any of those videos…Religious freedom does not extend and give you the right to get in the face of an ICE officer and assault them.”

"Note: I asked this question, and you’ll hear me say 'yes you have' here — because Johnson was already *directly asked* about one of these instances in one of earlier shutdown press conferences," said Jack Jenkins, national reporter for Religion News Service.

It comes after Johnson was leveled by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" on Monday. He showed a clip of Johnson being asked about Trump's demand for $230 million from the DOJ for himself. Johnson said he hadn't spoken to Trump and didn't know any specifics.

"Uhhhh, I'm just f---ed up," Stewart said, mocking Johnson.

The day after the DOJ question, another reporter followed up, asking Johnson's opinion on it. The Speaker swore he wasn't trying to dodge the question: "I haven't had time to dig into the details."

Stewart mocked Johnson for claiming he had a lot to do, alleging it was only to cover up the investigation files surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Republican members are out of Washington for another week, and Johnson is refusing to negotiate on the budget or healthcare. So, many people have questions about what exactly Johnson knows.

"Mike has never seen or heard of anything happening," posted CJ Fogler.

"When not appearing at a podium, does Mike Johnson go to his office, stand facing a corner and stick his fingers in his ears? The man never seems to have heard or seen anything ever," Broadway lawyer Michael Salerno questioned.

"More s--- Mike Johnson doesn’t know," said Mueller, She Wrote's Allison Gill on Bluesky.

"Can a reporter grow a pair and just say what we all are thinking already?" asked national security lawyer Bradley P. Moss. "He is deliberately refusing to look at information so he can remain ignorant. Pure and simple."

Even "Mother Jones" commented, "Mike Johnson, the perpetually unaware, strikes again."

"Has Mike Johnson ever considered holding his daily presser an hour later to give him time to read a paper?" influencer Schooley asked.

Casten: ‘I think Trump commits impeachable offenses on a daily basis’

Casten: 'I think Trump commits impeachable offenses on a daily basis'

lead image