Javid Johnson Cummings: Johnson Called Cummings’ Puppet

Published: 11 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Sajid Javid has revealed he considered Boris Johnson a “puppet” of Dominic Cummings before resigning as chancellor. Speaking in an extensive interview with the Institute for Government, Javid described his time in government as deeply challenging, particularly under Johnson’s leadership, where he felt his independence was compromised. He explained that his first resignation, in February 2020, stemmed from being told to dismiss his Treasury special advisers and accept replacements chosen by Cummings, a directive he found entirely unacceptable. Javid recalled telling Johnson he would not be “chancellor in name only” and refused to become a puppet, adding he warned the prime minister that Cummings was effectively controlling him. Johnson, according to Javid, denied the suggestion, insisting Javid had misunderstood the situation and urging friendship with Cummings.

Javid returned to government as health secretary in 2021 following Matt Hancock’s resignation, yet left a year later alongside then-chancellor Rishi Sunak as Johnson’s administration disintegrated. He cited a loss of confidence in Johnson’s leadership after discovering that assurances about No 10 lockdown-breaking parties were misleading, despite being told by those close to Johnson that the allegations were “bullshit.” Javid expressed frustration that if the government’s centre was willing to mislead ministers, effective governance became impossible.

Reflecting on his experiences across three prime ministers, Javid rated David Cameron as “the most effective,” while describing Theresa May as well-briefed but indecisive, often letting ministers argue without resolving issues. Johnson, he argued, was the least informed and engaged, showing limited interest in most matters. Javid’s tenure included six government departments over eight years, offering him a wide perspective on ministerial pressures and daily operational challenges. He highlighted the importance of practical planning, such as ensuring ministers had time to travel between appointments and to eat, noting that logistical oversight often impaired performance.

Javid also discussed the wider implications of ministerial work, noting that sustained workloads required practical considerations for health and efficiency. He described scheduling oversights, where even basic needs like meals during hospital or police visits were overlooked, emphasizing that well-nourished ministers perform more effectively. His candid reflections underline the complexities of political life under Johnson, highlighting tensions between independence, loyalty, and effective governance.

Javid’s candid revelations shed new light on internal tensions within Johnson’s administration, particularly the influence of Dominic Cummings on policy decisions. They also underscore the challenges ministers face balancing personal integrity with political pressures in high-stakes environments. His criticisms suggest enduring questions about transparency, accountability, and leadership within the Conservative Party during Johnson’s tenure.

The account also provides insight into the personal and professional pressures faced by cabinet members, showing that ministerial effectiveness depends not only on policy decisions but also on practical logistics and wellbeing support. Javid’s experience demonstrates that leadership styles and internal political dynamics significantly shape the capacity of ministers to fulfil their responsibilities. His comparisons among three prime ministers offer a rare perspective on governance styles, briefing practices, and decision-making effectiveness at the highest levels.

In conclusion, Sajid Javid’s reflections offer a detailed examination of the challenges and pressures of ministerial office, highlighting the influence of advisers like Dominic Cummings on prime ministers. His insistence on ministerial autonomy and accountability underlines broader questions about leadership, transparency, and governance integrity within Johnson’s government, providing a unique narrative on the intersection of personal principles and political reality.