David Jolly, the former Republican seeking to flip Florida for the Democrats: ‘We are seeing overenforcement and cruelty’

David Jolly is a 53-year-old Florida politician from Dunedin, near Tampa. He served as a Republican member of the U.S. House from 2014 to 2017, then left the party in 2018 during Donald Trump’s first term. He became a prominent television critic of Trump before registering as a Democrat last year.

Jolly won the Democratic gubernatorial primary in August by a wide margin. His campaign presents him as an alternative to Trump-era Republican policies, especially aggressive immigration enforcement. He also argues that Democrats need stronger economic messages for Hispanic voters.

On November 3, Jolly will face Republican Byron Donalds in the race to succeed Ron DeSantis. DeSantis is completing his second term and cannot seek re-election. Jolly hopes Republican dissatisfaction with Trump’s immigration policies will help Democrats compete across Florida, including among Cuban, Venezuelan, and other Hispanic voters.

A 287(g) agreement is a cooperation program between state or local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. It allows local officers to participate in certain immigration-enforcement work instead of leaving every task to federal agents. The arrangement connects local policing resources with the federal immigration system.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis expanded these agreements to every county. That statewide reach means local agencies across Florida can work with federal authorities under the program. Jolly objects to the governor’s mandate and says the state should suspend its participation if he becomes governor.

The issue matters because suspending the agreements could reduce the role of Florida’s state and local police in federal immigration enforcement. Federal agents could still operate in the state, according to Jolly, but Florida could withdraw its cooperation, reduce law-enforcement resources, and pursue due-process litigation.

Florida’s 287(g) agreements were expanded to all counties under Governor Ron DeSantis. The article describes this as placing Florida at the forefront of immigration enforcement. The expansion is significant because it makes cooperation available throughout the state, rather than limiting it to selected local jurisdictions.

With every county covered, state and local law-enforcement agencies across Florida can work with federal immigration authorities through these programs. That gives federal enforcement a wider local presence and connects immigration activity with police resources in communities statewide. It also makes the policy a central statewide election issue.

Jolly says the governor should not have imposed this mandate. If elected, he would suspend the agreements, litigate over due-process reforms, and draw down state law-enforcement resources. The statewide coverage therefore creates both a broad enforcement structure and a broad target for a future governor seeking to change policy.

If a governor suspended Florida’s 287(g) agreements, state and local law-enforcement agencies would no longer participate through those cooperation programs. That could narrow the state’s contribution to federal immigration enforcement. It would not necessarily end federal activity in Florida, because Jolly acknowledges that federal agents could still operate there.

Jolly says he would also draw down state law-enforcement resources and join other governors in demanding due-process reforms. He wants federal agents to show a judicial warrant, their faces, and their badges. These steps would make identification and legal authority more visible during immigration actions.

The likely result, based on Jolly’s stated plan, would be less state-enabled enforcement and more conflict between Florida and federal authorities. The state could rescind its agreements and litigate on behalf of due-process protections. Jolly frames this as a change in enforcement method, not opposition to border security.

Jolly argues that Republicans have shifted from border security to cruelty and broken promises. He points to cases where a baby is taken from a mother or a father disappears from work without having committed a property or violent crime. For him, the central question is how immigration enforcement treats people living and working in local communities.

His proposed response focuses on due process. He would suspend Florida’s 287(g) agreements and litigate against federal practices when necessary. He says agents should show a judicial warrant, their faces, and their badges. He also supports a pathway to legal and work status for undocumented people who have not committed property or violent crimes.

Jolly still says he supports border security. His distinction is between controlling the border and arresting community members under what he views as excessive enforcement. If elected, he would use state policy and legal action to limit cooperation while pressing for more transparent federal procedures.

Hispanic voters matter because they form important communities in Florida’s political contests. The article specifically highlights Cubans, Venezuelans, and other Hispanic voters. Their recent movement helped Trump carry Miami-Dade County in 2024, after the county had been a Democratic stronghold for decades.

Jolly says Democrats made several mistakes. They focused too narrowly on immigration and failed to emphasize schools, healthcare, housing, and rent. He also says Democrats did not clearly acknowledge that immigrant communities can support stronger border security. On cultural issues, he believes Democrats sometimes dismissed convictions involving faith, abortion, reproductive care, and traditional marriage.

Jolly hopes criticism of Trump’s immigration policies can bring some Hispanic voters back to Democrats. But he argues that immigration alone will not be enough. Democrats must offer an economic message and respect communities’ cultural and faith traditions while addressing their concerns about border security.

Federalism divides governmental power between the national government and the states. Immigration enforcement is principally a federal responsibility, while states manage their own police agencies and can decide whether to cooperate through state programs. That division explains why both Washington and Florida matter in this dispute.

A 287(g) agreement connects local or state law enforcement with federal immigration authorities. The federal government remains involved, but Florida supplies cooperation through its agencies. Jolly says the state can rescind those agreements, reduce its law-enforcement participation, and litigate over how federal agents operate.

This arrangement creates overlapping authority rather than complete state control. Suspending cooperation would not stop federal agents from working in Florida, but it could remove state assistance. Jolly’s position shows how a governor can influence immigration enforcement through state resources, even though the federal government retains primary authority over immigration policy.