Exclusive: DeSantis' Disney Feud Will Backfire in 2024, Key Florida Republican Says

As Governor Ron DeSantis' Wednesday presidential candidacy announcement brings him into direct competition with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, a key Florida lawmaker tells Newsweek that the governor's controversial clash with The Walt Disney Company will hurt his chances come 2024.

The Florida Republican's actions as governor may have helped bring about a historic level of statewide GOP victories in 2022, but DeSantis' priorities, personality, and way of going about business have increasingly been called into question by his own party. Among these skeptics is Congressman Greg Steube who chose to endorse Trump the day before DeSantis visited Washington, D.C. to meet with GOP members of Congress last month.

A Florida native, Steube represents the state's 17th Congressional District encompassing portions of Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties, all of which sit along the Gulf Coast. Steube took office in the conservative stronghold of a district after serving eight years in the Florida Legislature and four years in the U.S. Army. He currently serves on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, responsible for tax writing, as well as the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

By virtue of his role on the Select Subcommittee, Steube plays a role in investigating "matters related to the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of information on U.S. citizens by executive branch agencies, including whether such efforts are illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise unethical." Its creation in 2023 came amid ongoing Republican criticism over the size of the federal government, particularly under former President Barrack Obama.

According to a 2020 report from the Brookings Institution the number of federal jobs rose from 10 million to 11.3 million before falling to 9 million under Obama, with more than 2 million jobs being added under Trump.

Speaking to Newsweek on Capitol Hill, Steube accused Democrats of weaponizing the federal government to pursue a progressive agenda, and he echoed DeSantis in criticizing what he sees as a "woke" agenda being carried out by Disney.

However, the Sunshine State Republican also stated his belief that the governor has leveraged state institutions to wage a political feud, a feud that began when DeSantis dissolved Disney's self-governing Reedy Creek Improvement District after the corporation came out against his so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill limiting discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom.

The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Newsweek: What does weaponization of government mean to you, and in your opinion, why do you think now is an important time for Congress to focus on this issue?

Steube: Well, it's such an important issue because the weaponization has benefited the Democrats because you have what has turned into a deep state full of Democratic operatives in these different bureaucratic agencies that are fulfilling and operating under a progressive agenda for political purposes. We are now finding out that all this goes back to the time when Obama was president.

I've only been up here five years. We obviously didn't have the majority, so the Democrats aren't going to shed light on what is helping them. So, it's our opportunity to showcase to the American people the weaponization that has occurred.

People see both Republicans and Democrats working in D.C. Can you explain the thinking behind your assertion that these bureaucratic institutions employ largely Democratic-leaning individuals working toward a progressive agenda?

Well, Obama filled them from, like, the highest levels all the way down. They chucked as many people in there as they could that were Democratic-leaning, and over the years of having no check on their activity, you then have actions like the Russia collusion hoax [carried out against then-President Trump].

Looking at the government in your state specifically, we've seen Governor Ron DeSantis take a variety of actions against Disney. I understand that you share the government's feelings regarding Disney's decision to show support for certain issues you deem "woke." However, I wonder, as a conservative, whether you feel his actions have crossed any sort of line?

I certainly don't agree with a lot of the actions that have been taken. I agree with him on the transgenderism and the wokeism—I don't support that. I actually tried when I was in the state legislature to rectify some of the special privileges that Disney gets under the law. That Reedy Creek board, the fact that alcohol laws don't apply to them, the fact that all of the state laws that we have don't apply to Disney is completely unfair, and it shouldn't be that way.

There's a way to file bills, and there's a way to accomplish that that isn't necessarily targeting them but is equaling the playing field. Like Comcast, who owns Universal, they don't have all these special privileges. So, why should Disney, who operates a theme park, be exempt from all of these laws and be able to have their own basically government when Comcast can't do that for Universal and Busch Gardens can't do that in Tampa, and all these different organizations? You do away with all the special privileges specifically for one private company, and I think there's a way to do that.

What it appears like now is there's this cat and mouse game—no pun intended on Mickey—but there's this cat and mouse game where it is specifically targeted just to Disney for retribution purposes to the point where Disney files a lawsuit, and I actually I haven't read the lawsuit, but I think there is probably some legal basis for the way that the bills have gone specifically just after them instead of just repealing the special exemptions that they get and accomplishing those types of things.

At the end of the day, it's a private company. If they want to be woke and they want to allow for transgenderism, then they're going to have to face the American public. The moment they started doing all that, we got rid of Disney+ in my household. We don't go to their theme park anymore. So, consumers are going to react based on, "I don't want to participate with a company that's doing that," and you could do away with their special exemptions without making it this back and forth that you are seeing.

So, I don't think even amongst conservative Republicans, they like the tit-for-tat that is kind of going on against ultimately a private company. I don't agree with what they're doing on gender identity, transgenderism, infiltrating that into what they're doing as a company, but I'm using my own family and consumer rights to not partake in that. Using the full force of the state for basically a political vendetta, I don't think that's appropriate.

Some argue that the governor's restriction of books and limiting of what conduct is deemed acceptable in the classroom constitutes government weaponization. Explain where the line is drawn concerning government intervention. How do those actions differ from those that have been taken against Disney?

Well, under the way the states are supposed to operate, they have full jurisdiction as it relates to what our children are taught in the state of Florida. School districts also have some input there. We passed a bunch of bills when I was in the state legislature that allowed for citizens and parents to bring to the school board's attention certain books that they didn't think were appropriate for that age, and there was a process put in place for that. I fully support all of the things that have happened in education in the state of Florida.

I think the state has full jurisdiction to decide what our children should be taught. I support our children, especially in elementary school, not discussing sexual content that should have no place in our elementary school. Frankly, I don't think that should have any place through middle school. I think what the state's done on all that is certainly within the confines of the jurisdiction and the powers that the state has. Even in Sarasota County, the county I represent, you've even seen the flipping of school boards from Democrat to Republican, although it's nonpartisan, to a more conservative board because of a lot of these issues.

To be clear, are you stating that the difference between the Disney matter and the situation facing Florida Schools is the fact that one body is governed under state authority while the other is a private institution?

Yes, because parents have a choice whether they want their kids there or not. What is taught in private schools, the state doesn't have any influence on content or anything, frankly, for that matter. The only thing that's currently involved in that is the money following the child and the appropriate per-pupil funding. So, with private schools, it's private school—they can operate however they want. And obviously, parents are going to have a decision as to whether they want their kids to attend there based on the content of what their children are being taught.

Governor DeSantis has officially launched his presidential campaign. Do you think his "cat and mouse game" with Disney will have a bearing on how Republican voters perceive him and his adherence to conservative ideals?

Well, I've endorsed President Trump. I think the mass majority of Republican congressmen and women in Florida have endorsed President Trump. So, DeSantis is gonna have to decide for himself how he's going to deal with that. But I can say from even people that I have spoken to, it seems to people that maybe aren't educated on everything but looking from outside, it seems to be this like tit-for-tat that is going back and forth between DeSantis in the governor's office and Disney. You're even seeing state legislators start to say like, 'This is ridiculous.' I think Joe Gruters is one in the state senate who actually voted against the newest bill because he's like, "We, the legislature, are being used as a tool by DeSantis for a political vendetta against Disney."

Circling back to the weaponization committee. It was created under a 221-211 party-line vote and has faced Democratic criticism for its focuses. Do you think the work of this committee will ever be viewed in a bipartisan manner? Party control of government obviously changes. Might Democrats show support for this issue in the future?

It should be a bipartisan issue because it's very short-sighted for Democrats to not be very disturbed by the type of information that we're receiving, for example, last week from FBI whistleblowers.

Because let's say Trump wins, and he gets rid of all these people and starts putting conservatives in. If they start doing the exact same thing to liberal groups that the Democrats have been doing to conservative groups, they're going to lose their mind. And suddenly, the narrative is going to flip for them, and they're suddenly going to say, "Oh, we need to investigate this, and there needs to be oversight on this."

Congress is the one that has oversight on these agencies. We created them. We created all of these agencies, and we have oversight authority on them. We have investigative authority over them. And just because they're doing the bidding of the Democratic Party right now, you would think that Democrats are not going to be so short-sighted.