TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida House Speaker Danny Perez is challenging Governor Ron DeSantis about the true reason behind his opposition to a controversial immigration reform bill. As tensions escalate between the legislative and executive branches over this sweeping policy, Perez says he’s hopeful that the governor will pick up the phone to find a resolution.

Despite a reported lack of dialogue, in a chat about the ongoing infighting, Perez said this week he remains focused on turning that big immigration bill lawmakers passed Tuesday, known as the TRUMP Act, into Florida law.

“The legislature’s bill is significantly more conservative and tougher on crime when it comes to illegal immigration,” Perez said.

The 84-page proposal includes mandatory death sentences for undocumented individuals convicted of capital crimes, the elimination of in-state tuition for DACA recipients, and a half-billion-dollar allocation for state and city police to enforce immigration laws. It also proposes giving Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner the authority to oversee immigration enforcement.

Perez noted not only is the commissioner an elected official, but the post has a statewide network and its own law enforcement.

“This is too important of a position to not be held accountable,” said Speaker Perez. “I wanted to ensure that it was a person elected statewide. The Commissioner of Agriculture’s job here is to make sure that local law enforcement and all levels of law enforcement are cooperating with the federal government and President Trump.”

However, Governor DeSantis has sharply criticized the bill, calling it “a very, very grotesque weak piece of legislation.” According to DeSantis, the bill was crafted too hastily and is potentially unconstitutional due to its siphoning of immigration authority away from the governor’s office.

“You have to do a ‘mother may I’ with the Commissioner of Agriculture about whether you can bring in the federal immigration authorities,” he said during one of four immigration roundtables this week. “How ridiculous is that? How does that help us do what we need to do?”

The controversy has escalated into a public battle, with Republicans openly criticizing each other through TV interviews, podcasts, and across social platforms. Accusations of being “Republican In Name Only” are rampant, along with personal attacks and recall petitions.

“If the governor disagrees by calling the bill weak and liberal and all these other things that are just not true,” said Perez. “At that point, it is hard to collaborate with a partner that is unwilling to communicate.”

When asked what he would say to Governor DeSantis directly, Perez said. “I would ask him, what’s, ‘What’s the real reason that you’re against my bill?’ What is it? What don’t you like about the bill? Be honest about it. There’s no Twitter here. You know, he goes on Hannity and Laura Ingraham and like, three times a week. I would ask him to be honest with me: what is the real problem with the bill? Because this is not a weak bill. He knows it’s not a weak bill.”

DeSantis’s team has consistently said they want more stringent measures, like making illegal immigration a state crime, granting deportation powers to Florida, and establishing an immigration czar under the governor’s authority. DeSantis has threatened to veto the bill, and while lawmakers can override it, the necessary Senate votes might not be there.

Perez acknowledged the potential for a veto, saying, “You have to think about what he’s about to veto. He’s about to veto a bill that gives the death penalty to illegal immigrants that rape children. I mean, put that into perspective for a second. Think about that. We did our job. We made the best, most conservative bill that anyone could have ever imagined, the best in the country, and we passed it with a super majority of Republicans and not one Democrat.”

Despite the possibility of a legislative logjam, Perez remained unfazed about his relationship with the governor, emphasizing that in his mind, the rift isn’t a feud; it’s a “disagreement.”

“There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone,” said the Speaker. “The important part is that once you realize that you are in a disagreement, that you were able to converse in order to try and find a solution. That’s the part that’s missing this disagreement. That’s it, right there. So, I mean, eventually, it has to happen. It’s just a matter of when. I would have it tonight. I’d have it after this interview. I would do it whenever.”