A deeper look into the potential options to replace Florida property taxes, and President Donald Trump stands behind Elon Musk after he asks federal employees to defend their work record.

A deeper dive into state property taxes in Florida

Florida could become the first state in the nation to end its property tax, at least that is if Gov. Ron DeSantis gets his way.

Property tax is the primary way that cities and counties generate revenue, but at the moment, lawmakers are considering two proposals that would potentially change that.

One contemplates ending property tax entirely. The other would raise your maximum tax exemption from $50,000 up to $75,000.

“Is it your property or not? Just for being on your property, you got to write a check to the government every year. So you’re basically paying rent to the government to live on your own property. And our homestead exemption is not strong enough to help these folks,” DeSantis said.

Florida Republicans may soon launch a study to rethink property tax. And if lawmakers like it, then Floridians will vote on it in 2026.

“If you don’t replace them, that means that you’re going to see local budgets cut, most likely, because it’s a substantial portion of their budgets," said Florida Policy Institute Policy analyst Esteban Leonardo Santis. "Or, if you’re trying to make up the revenue you’re in, you’re going to have to see taxes increase somewhere else.” 

One option is a higher sales tax. And according to the Florida Policy Institute, the state would need about $43 billion a year to make up the difference.

“We’re blessed to not have a state income tax. For the most part, I think we do run a very lean government. But the property taxes help fund our schools, our roads, our law enforcement officers, and sanitation,” Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell said.

Property taxes are a practice that dates back to the colonial era.

Florida could also institute a luxury tax to make up for the budget shortfall.

The option would focus on a variety of luxury services like private flights, golf club memberships, even pool cleaning.

Trump backs Musk as he roils the federal workforce with demands and threats

President Donald Trump backed Elon Musk's demand that federal employees explain their recent accomplishments by the end of Monday or risk getting fired, even as government agency officials were told that compliance with Musk's edict was voluntary.

Confusion and anger over the situation spawned new litigation and added to turmoil within the federal workforce.

"What he's doing is saying, 'Are you actually working?'" Trump said in the Oval Office during a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. "And then, if you don't answer, like, you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired, because a lot of people aren't answering because they don't even exist."

The Republican president said Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has found "hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud" as he suggested that federal paychecks are going to nonexistent employees. He did not present evidence for his claims.

Even as Trump and Musk pressed their case, the Office of Personnel Management informed agency leaders that their workers were not required to respond by the deadline of 11:59 p.m. EST Monday, according to a person with knowledge of the conversation who requested anonymity to discuss internal matters.

The conflicting directives led to varying advice for federal employees, depending on where they work. Some were told to answer the request for a list of five things that they did last week, others were informed it was optional, and others were directed not to answer at all.

Musk bristled at resistance, saying federal workers "hate even the tiniest amount of accountability." He continued to threaten firings hours after employees were told that they didn't need to comply with his demands.

"Subject to the discretion of the President, they will be given another chance," he posted on X, his social media platform. "Failure to respond a second time will result in termination."

Attorneys representing unions, businesses, veterans and conservation organizations filed an updated lawsuit in federal court in California on Monday, arguing Musk had violated the law by threatening mass firings.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by the State Democracy Defenders Fund, called it "one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country."

Anna Kelly, a White House deputy press secretary, criticized the litigation by saying "in the time it took these employees on taxpayer-funded salaries to file a frivolous lawsuit, they could have briefly recapped their accomplishments to their managers, as is common in the private sector, 100 times over."

Musk is leading Trump's efforts to overhaul and downsize the federal government. They've urged employees to resign, directed agencies to lay off probationary workers and halted work at some agencies altogether.

There has been pushback in protests around Washington and from within the government. The Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog for the federal workforce, said Monday that the firing of several probationary workers may be illegal. Trump is trying to fire the office's leader, Hampton Dellinger, in a case that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dellinger asked the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board to stop layoffs of six employees, but suggested that many more workers should also be protected from losing their jobs.

There are also signs Musk is testing the limits of his influence. Some administration officials — including some of Trump's most strident allies, such as FBI Director Kash Patel — have told employees not to respond to the email requesting five things they did, citing privacy or security concerns and noting that agencies have their own processes for evaluating employees.

Judge rejects immediately restoring AP's access to White House but urges government to reconsider

A federal judge on Monday refused to immediately order the White House to restore The Associated Press' access to presidential events, saying the news organization had not demonstrated it had suffered any irreparable harm. But he urged the Trump administration to reconsider its two-week-old ban, saying that case law "is uniformly unhelpful to the White House.”

U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden's decision was only for the moment, however. He told attorneys for the Trump administration and the AP that the issue required more exploration before ruling.

McFadden peppered both sides with questions during arguments over a lawsuit the AP filed Friday saying that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the ban, which began gradually two weeks ago. President Donald Trump said it was punishment for the agency's decision not to entirely follow his executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

McFadden, discussing the composition of the “press pool” that is chosen by the White House Correspondents' Association, questioned why the government was obligated to follow those choices. “It feels a little odd that the White House is somehow bound by the decisions this private organization is making," the judge told AP attorneys.

He also questioned AP's noting of its longtime membership in the White House press pool.

“Is this administration somehow bound by what happened with President McKinley?” the judge asked. But he noted that the correspondents' group had been tasked by the White House to choose the members of its pool.

“The White House has accepted the correspondents' association to be the referee here, and has just discriminated against one organization. That does seem problematic,” McFadden said in an exchange with government attorney Brian Hudak.

Later, McFadden warned the government’s attorney to reconsider its position, saying “case law in this circuit is uniformly unhelpful to the White House.”

The AP says it is adhering to the “Gulf of Mexico” terminology because its audience is global and the waters are not only in U.S. territory, but it is acknowledging Trump’s rechristening as well.

AP says the issue strikes at the very core of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which bars the government from punishing speech. The White House says access to the president is a privilege, not a right.