Political tensions escalated in Spain after Alberto Núñez Feijóo, leader of the Partido Popular (PP), criticised Transport and Sustainable Mobility Minister Óscar Puente over his comments on the Crown. Puente called a photograph of King Felipe VI with media figure Javier Negre an “absolute ignominy” in a social media post. Feijóo described the remark as “an unprecedented attack on the Crown.”
During a visit to a photographic exhibition dedicated to former Prime Minister Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo, Feijóo accused government ministers of behaving in a manner unbefitting their positions. He said ministers were resorting to personal insults against political opponents and private citizens, warning that such language damaged public institutions. Feijóo said Puente’s remarks crossed a line in public criticism of the monarchy, linking his argument to standards of public office associated with Spain’s constitutional transition.
The constitutional structure places the Crown among Spain’s state institutions. Article 56.1 of the 1978 Constitution defines the King as head of state and as a symbol of the unity and permanence of the state. Article 64 provides for the countersignature of the King’s official acts and assigns responsibility to the authorities who countersign them. Those provisions concern the Crown’s formal constitutional functions. The dispute over Puente’s comments is a political argument about the monarch’s public image and the conduct expected of a minister.
Feijóo said Spain was suffering under a government that, in his view, acted against the nation’s interests. He accused the executive of “occupying and degrading” state institutions, putting its own interests ahead of the country’s and weakening equality among Spanish citizens for political advantage. These claims form part of the PP’s broader criticism of the government’s institutional conduct.
Feijóo also criticised the government’s response to the influx of migrants into Ceuta, calling it passive and indifferent to residents’ security and well-being. He invoked Calvo-Sotelo to question whether the former prime minister would have engaged in light-hearted activities at the official residence during such a crisis. The government’s account, presented by La Moncloa on 20 October 2026, described returns to Morocco and temporary accommodation, as well as security deployments and services for minors and migrants.
The government reported that 12,705 people had returned to Morocco between 10 August and 20 October, including 12,142 voluntary returns and 536 expulsions. It also said the General State Administration had made 7,477 temporary accommodation places available. Ceuta’s regional protection system was caring for 3,331 minors. Of those, 107 had been transferred to mainland Spain through family-reunification procedures, while 181 had been relocated to other autonomous communities under Article 35 of the Immigration Act.
The same briefing recorded 11,375 surveillance and information patrols, with 5,237 personnel deployed. It reported 83% vaccination coverage among migrants housed in designated facilities. The briefing listed 211 hospital beds available in Ceuta, of which 100 were occupied, including 20 by migrants. The government also described operations at Trampolín and Guano beaches, the Tarajal esplanade and warehouses, and the area around the Centre for the Temporary Stay of Immigrants (CETI). These figures detail the administrative and operational measures the government cited in response to Feijóo’s criticism.
The dispute reflects broader political divisions over the monarchy and government accountability, with migration policy also at issue. Feijóo’s allegations about institutional conduct and the government’s account of its operations in Ceuta present competing political arguments: the government details the resources mobilised, while Feijóo questions the executive’s priorities and its approach to state institutions. The controversy has also revived debate over the tone of political discourse and the responsibilities attached to public office.
