TALLAHASSEE, Florida — In this hurricane-prone state, Republican legislators say they are preparing to weather a political and financial storm.

In other states led by Democrats, the moves by lawmakers could be labeled “Trump proofing.” But no matter the framing, Florida’s GOP-controlled Legislature is about to wrap up work on the state’s budget with a series of significant steps designed to shore up reserves and curtail spending.

The rationale given by Republican leaders includes everything from making the state’s budget resistant to a possible recession (without mentioning the economic impact of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump) to acknowledging “uncertainty” associated with Congress and potential cuts to Medicaid, food aid and federal agencies responsible for helping with emergency efforts.

“Should we have the expectation that if the federal government is spending less to get their budget and debt under control that we should be held harmless? I don’t think it works that way,” said Senate President Ben Albritton (R-Wauchula.) “The question is: ‘Do I believe this budget prepares Florida for what could be coming out of the ‘DOGE’ cuts or just the changes that come out of Washington D.C.?’ And I would say yes.”

Lawmakers in Tallahassee got to this point following a protracted and bumpy session, during which legislative leaders clashed over spending levels and tax cuts. State House Speaker Daniel Perez (R-Miami) initially wanted to permanently lower Florida’s sales tax rate, but he encountered headwinds from Senate Republicans as well as Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis contended the sales tax rate cut would benefit tourists and would undercut his push to cut local property taxes.

After being unable to come to a deal during their normal 60-day session, legislative leaders reached an accord late last week. The final deal calls for $2.25 billion in “revenue reductions,” but part of that total includes steering extra money into state reserves while also dedicating money to paying down existing debt. The Legislature also intends to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask voters to permanently increase the size of reserves.

Perez said his push was less about tax cuts and more about paring back spending he asserts had gotten out of control during DeSantis’ time as governor.

But he also argued it would give Florida extra money that could be tapped into if another recession happens. During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, Florida Republican legislators resorted to large budget cuts, but they also drew down reserves and voted to raise taxes and fees to make up the difference

“None of us know what the future holds,” said Perez. “When we had a recession, the state of Florida was not prepared for that recession. We began to scramble. … We did not have the money that was necessary to protect Floridians. After this bill passes we will be in a better place.”

Florida currently has billions in reserves, including a mandated “Budget Stabilization Fund.” They were able to reach that point because the state’s economy grew in the aftermath of the Covid epidemic, while Florida was also flush with billions that came from Congress as part of massive aid packages.

Lawmakers are still tinkering with the current budget, but they are expected to land on a final total this month that puts overall state spending below the amount spent during the current fiscal year that ends on June 30.

The Legislature is also taking steps to claw back billions in unspent money. On Thursday, lawmakers sent DeSantis a bill that would free up $2.1 billion that Florida had set aside three years ago to assist private insurance companies struggling with backup financing due to the state’s property insurance crisis. The money would have eventually reverted back to the state’s main budget account, but legislators decided to speed that up.

As the session has gone on, top Republicans have initially side stepped questions about how much federal grant money state universities lost due to cuts pushed by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency efforts. Likewise, there has been little debate or discussion about potential impacts to other programs that are heavily reliant on federal aid such as Medicaid.

Florida is also still waiting on money it previously requested from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in response to a flurry of hurricanes that have ripped through the state in recent years.

“There may not be a FEMA next year, none of us know that,” state Senate budget chief Ed Hooper (R-Palm Harbor) said while defending the legislative proposal to set aside extra money for the reserves.

Under the current plan legislators will set aside $1.5 billion over the next two years that will eventually roll into the “Budget Stabilization Fund” if voters ago along with the idea of increasing the size of that reserve.

Some Democrats — who contend the state already doesn’t spend enough on teachers, health care and other programs — raised questions this week about the efforts to put money away in a “lock box,” questioning how easily the Legislature could tap into the fund. The proposal going before voters says the state could withdraw money fund for a “critical state need,” even though that term isn’t defined.

“It’s important to have flexibility because you never know what will come your way,” said state Rep. Christine Hunschofsky (D-Parkland).

But Republican legislators backing the idea said they wanted to make sure the money was only used to deal with a financial crisis or emergency for the state.

“We are doing this so we are truly prepared for a break-the-glass situation,” said Rep. Lawrence McClure (R-Dover), the House budget chief.

MAGA loyalists have put Sen. John Cornyn’s reelection campaign in a Texas-size hole.

An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance, a major conservative funding group linked to megadonor Paul Singer, shows the Texas Republican down 17 points in a head-to-head primary matchup with state attorney general Ken Paxton.

Below the top-line of Paxton’s 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as “Trump Movement” voters and those who were “Traditional Republicans.” In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead.

The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP.

In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent.

There was some good news for the incumbent in the poll. Despite trailing Paxton significantly, he is still viewed favorably by the Republican primary electorate in the Lone Star State — just not as favorably as the state attorney general.

The poll, conducted from April 29 through May 1 among 800 Republican primary voters, is among a series of public and private surveys all showing Cornyn significantly trailing Paxton. They have sparked increasing concern from national Republican operatives about a potentially ugly and costly primary, as well as the possible elevation of a scandal-plagued candidate who might be at risk in a general election.

The American Opportunity Alliance’s interest in the race is notable; it’s one of the key donor consortiums in Republican politics and its members including Singer and Chuck Schwab are some of the biggest funders on the right.

Amid the messy ongoing divorce between the president and the world’s richest man, this much is already clear: Donald Trump has sole custody of the House GOP.

Republican lawmakers are making clear that, if forced to choose, it’s Trump — not Elon Musk — they’re sticking by as leaders race to contain the fallout for their “one big, beautiful bill.”

Even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who helms a House panel inspired by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative, blasted Musk’s public attacks on Trump as “unwarranted” and criticized his “lashing out on the internet.”

“America voted for Donald Trump on Nov. 4, 2024 — every single vote mattered just as much as the other,” Greene said in a brief interview. “And whether it was $1 that was donated or hundreds of millions of dollars, the way I see it, everybody’s the same.”

Like many Americans, GOP members watched Thursday’s online exchange with a sense of car-crash-like fascination. Many shared that they hoped Musk and Trump could somehow patch things up. But many — including some of the former DOGE chief’s biggest backers on Capitol Hill — were wholly unsurprised to see the billionaire suddenly cut down to size after months of chatter about who was really calling the shots at the White House.

“It’s President Trump, not President Musk,” said one lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about prevailing opinions inside the House GOP.

Speaker Mike Johnson made no secret of where he stands on the public breakup.

He told reporters Friday that he hoped the two men “reconcile” and that it would be “good for the party and the country if all this worked out.” But in the nearly same breath, Johnson quickly reaffirmed his allegiance to the president and issued a warning to Musk.

“Do not doubt, do not second-guess and don’t ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,” Johnson said. “He is the leader of the party. He is the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era. And he’s doing an excellent job for the people.”

Other House Republicans concurred with the speaker’s assessment Friday, even as they faced the looming threat of Musk targeting them in the upcoming midterms or at least pulling back on his political giving after pouring more than $250 million into the 2024 election on behalf of Trump and the GOP ticket.

“I think it’s unfortunate,” said Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.) of the breakup. “But Donald Trump was elected by a majority of the American people.”

Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, who was one of only two Republicans to oppose Trump’s megabill in the House last month, also made clear he stood with the president over Musk.

“He does not have a flight mode — he’s fight, fight, fight … and he’s been pretty measured,” Davidson said of Trump. “I think Elon Musk looked a little out of control. And hopefully he gets back and grounded.”

GOP leaders who have spent weeks cajoling their members to vote for the sprawling domestic-policy bill hardly hid their feelings as Musk continued to bash the legislation online, even calling on Americans to call their representatives in an effort to tank it.

“Frankly, it’s united Republicans even more to go and defend the great things that are in this bill — and once it’s passed and signed into law by August, September, you’re going to see this economy turning around like nothing we’ve ever seen,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in a brief interview Friday.

“I’ll be waiting for all those people who said the opposite to admit that they were wrong,” Scalise added. “But I’m not expecting that to happen.”

A few Republicans are still trying to walk a fine line by embracing both Trump and Musk — especially some fiscal hawks who believe Musk is right about the megabill adding trillions to the national debt.

“I think Elon has some valid points about the bill, concerns that myself and a handful of others were working to address up until the passage of it,” Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said in an interview. “I think that’ll make the bill stronger. I think it’ll help our standing with the American people.”

Both Trump and Musk “have paid a tremendous price personally for this country,” Cloud added. “And them working together is certainly far better for the country.”

Notably, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, a key Musk ally on the Hill, declined to engage Thursday when asked about the burgeoning feud. Instead, the Ohio Republican responded by praising the megabill Musk had moved to tank.

Democrats, for their part, watched the unfolding and public breakup with surprise and a heavy dose of schadenfreude.

“There are no good guys in a fight like this,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). “You just eat some popcorn and watch the show.”

Republicans are hoping for a détente between Donald Trump and Elon Musk after Thursday’s blowup, warning that the fight between the two men could distract from the president’s agenda and derail Congress’ “Big Beautiful Bill.”

The battle between the president and the world’s richest man escalated from a simmer to a full-on scorched-earth showdown over the course of the day on Thursday — starting with light criticism in the morning that escalated to Trump targeting Musk’s pocket book and Musk saying the president was an associate of a notorious convicted sex criminal and suggesting he may need to be impeached.

“I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,” Speaker Mike Johnson told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Friday morning.

POLITICO reported Thursday night that White House aides were looking to broker a peace between the two men and were planning on scheduling a call between the two camps.

“Oh, it’s OK,” Trump told POLITICO in a brief telephone call Thursday when asked about the very public breakup. “It’s going very well, never done better.” Trump went on to tout his favorability ratings saying, “The numbers are through the roof, the highest polls I’ve ever had and I have to go.”

A senior administration official and a person close to the White House — both granted anonymity to discuss the president’s thinking around the blowup — said the president had been convinced Thursday night that continuing to engage with Musk would be counterproductive and a distraction from a host of good news the White House should be focused on, from his talks with Xi Jinping to negotiating a deal with Iran and ushering his “big beautiful” reconciliation bill through Congress, which was the root cause of the blowup.

But Trump has displayed some lingering frustration with his one-time benefactor. He told ABC News that Musk has “lost his mind” — and he is “not particularly” interested in talking to Musk. He also told CNN that “the poor guy’s got a problem.”

Still, Republican legislators Friday are following Johnson’s lead, keeping with the theme of deescalation in the fallout of the public fight.

“Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they’re both going to put the country first,” said Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas). “And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.”

Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) said Friday he was “shocked and dismayed” to see his “two friends fighting,” but remains an “optimist” that the former allies can work it out.

“I believe there’s a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,” Bean said. “We need them together. We need to be united, and we’re stronger together. So I’m very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.”

But even as they seek to not escalate the fight, party faithfuls are still making clear where their allegiances lie.

“I don’t tell my friend Elon how to — I don’t argue with him about how to build rockets. And I wish he wouldn’t argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,” Johnson told CNBC.

He later told reporters on Capitol Hill that “I hope they reconcile. I believe in redemption. … I think it’s good for the party and the country if all this worked out. But I tell you what: do not doubt, do not second guess and don’t ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump.”

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) went a step further, saying he thinks “Elon is getting too personal” in his attacks.

“It’s getting out of control,” Nehls said Thursday. “They got to stop it. I think it’s, you know, it’s not healthy. And some of the most recent comments, I think, Elon, you’ve lost your mind.”

But Johnson — who was also targeted by Musk Thursday — largely on Friday kept his cool in responding to Musk, brushing off his claim that he landed Republicans their 2024 victory.

“Elon was a big contributor in the last election,” the speaker acknowledged to CNBC, “but this was a whole team effort. I mean, President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation — of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that. But we all worked hard. We delivered the House majority.”

The speaker said he was with the president in the Oval Office for part of the showdown on X, a meeting reported earlier by POLITICO. Trump seemed “disappointed” by Musk’s attacks, the speaker said, reiterating that he is a “huge fan and supporter of President Trump” for good measure. He told POLITICO Friday he hasn’t spoken with Musk yet.

The White House has sought to project an air of calm despite Musk’s relentless attacks — but aides there remain wary of the Tesla CEO popping off again.The two people close to the president said several Trump allies — including at least one White House official — tried to reach Musk by phone when he was on his rampage on X, but Musk was not taking calls for a time.

The way Musk reacted to the president’s comments made White House officials feel like they were dealing with an “unhinged” situation, the senior administration official said Thursday — and that they had to just ignore what he was doing. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent via press or personal contact information for his companies.

“Everybody is just like, ‘OK, this is manic and crazy,’” the official said, “and we’re just gonna move along and pass the bill. And that’s kind of the feeling of everyone right now.”

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Elise Stefanik is finally back on the House Intelligence Committee.

On Friday morning, Speaker Mike Johnson added the New York Republican back to the influential spy panel, after months haggling over how to return the GOP star to her coveted committee post.

Stefanik was added to the committee under unanimous consent, along with Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).

The congressmember was originally set to maintain her seat on the Intelligence Committee this January, but gave up the assignment when she was tapped to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Donald Trump pulled his selection back in March due to the GOP’s narrow majority in the House.

After her ambassador bid flamed out, Johnson said in April he intended to get Stefanik back on the committee. But fulfilling that promise put him in a bind: He could either strip a current Intelligence Committee Republican of a spot, or work with the minority to circumvent committee rules and add another Democrat.

Johnson opted for the latter, pairing Stefanik with Cohen and expanding the panel past a limit under committee rules of 25 members.

A spokesperson for Johnson declined to comment on any potential deal with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). A spokesperson for Jeffries didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Cohen has been in Congress since 2007 but has never served on the Intelligence Committee.

Stefanik’s allies hold Johnson responsible for her losing out on the ambassador post, which could have given the Republican rising star a prominent voice in Trump’s foreign policy.

Johnson and Stefanik have been warring behind the scenes for several weeks as they have sought to restore her previous positions in Congress.

Tensions spilled into public view in April when the congressmember publicly denied Johnson’s claims that the pair had spoken about potentially running for governor of New York.

The two sat down together in April in a bid to resolve tensions.

Stefanik has sat on the Intelligence Committee since 2017.

It was her role on the panel that catapulted her into the national spotlight in 2019 when the committee, then led by Democrats, spearheaded the first impeachment investigation into Trump.

Stefanik — once seen as a moderate Republican— emerged as a key defender of Trump in her prosecutorial questioning of witnesses and sharp rebukes of Democrats on the panel.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.