Elon Musk Is Realizing He Made a Huge Mistake
Tesla has been put through the wringer during CEO Elon Musk's absence.
The EV maker saw earnings plummet in the first quarter of this year, with net income cratering an astonishing 71 percent since the same period last year.
The root of all the trouble was Musk himself, as he embraced far-right ideologies and took on a position gutting the federal government — hugely unpopular moves with Tesla's left-leaning customer base that spawned an international protest movement against the company and eviscerated sales across key markets.
Musk's new buddies in Washington weren't helping his business fundamentals either. The Trump administration is planning to revoke EV tax credits and kill incentives for battery production in the US with its latest budget, not to mention its tariff war that's rattled international markets, directly undermining critical supply lines for Tesla.
And as Electrek reports, Musk finally seems to be realizing that his time in government is causing huge problems for his business interests.
Take those energy credits. In a statement posted to Musk's social media platform X-formerly-Twitter last week, Tesla wrote that "abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid."
Instead, the carmaker argued for a "sensible wind down" of residential and investment-based clean energy tax credits.
In a separate post, Musk pointed out that "there is no change to tax incentives for oil and gas, just EV/solar," underlining the Trump administration's staunch anti-clean energy stance.
Musk has also called out the Trump administration's tax and spending bill for increasing the budget deficit, tweeting that it "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing."
It's a surprising moment of clarity for a businessman who willingly threw hundreds of millions of dollars behind Trump. The president has vowed to "drill, baby, drill," called climate change a "hoax," and shocked even oil and gas CEOs with his plans to roll back environmental rules.
For a time, Musk seemed to support those anti-environmental initiatives. Late last year, he publicly called on the government to scrap all electric car subsidies.
"I think we should get rid of all credits," he said at the time.
"Take away the subsidies," he tweeted back in July. "It will only help Tesla."
But now that Tesla is facing an existential crisis, Musk is seemingly having second thoughts about Trump and the GOP's aggressive anti-clean energy policies.
Could this be the beginning of Musk re-embracing his carmaker's original-but-since-deleted "Secret Master Plan" climate manifesto?
Or could all of this be grandstanding to put on the appearance that Musk has finally come to his senses to appease enraged Tesla investors and would-be customers?
The damage has certainly been done. Musk's actions have set Tesla's brand on fire, making it synonymous with an extreme right-wing worldview and torching desirability for its rapidly aging offerings.
Meanwhile, Musk's political allies are taking aim at the future of the EV and clean energy sector, potentially making matters even worse for the embattled carmaker.
Tesla's shares rallied last month, indicating widespread enthusiasm for Musk's return. But soon he'll have to show results.
More on Tesla: Elon Musk Reportedly Owes Donald Trump a Colossal Sum of Money
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Stocks to Watch Monday: Exxon, Tesla, Northern Trust
↗️ Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX), BP (BP), Occidental Petroleum (OXY): Energy stocks gained modestly in premarket trading after the U.S. attacked Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. Investors are watching for signs Iran could block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. ↘️ IAG (UK:IAG), Air France-KLM (FR:AF), Singapore Airlines (SG: C6L): Global airline stocks edged lower. Carriers including Air France cancelled some flights to the Middle East after the attack. U.S. airline stocks were little changed ahead of the open. ↗️ Tesla (TSLA): The electric-vehicle maker launched its long-awaited robotaxi service over the weekend. Shares rose 1.5% premarket.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major U.S. banks poised for massive shift in approach toward cryptocurrency: 'Defend your right to buy'
Despite the instability of cryptocurrency, major U.S. banks are considering a move toward supporting these emerging currencies, Reuters reported. However, they are being rightfully cautious given the shifting legal landscape and how easy it would be to run afoul of laws designed to keep our financial systems honest. Reuters spoke to industry executives about the possibility and revealed that internal discussions are already happening regarding the potential change. However, no bank wants to make the first move. "When I look at the bitcoin universe, the leverage in the system, the misuse in the system, the money laundering issues, trafficking, I'm not a fan of it," said Jamie Dimon, CEO of the largest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, per Reuters. "We're going to allow you to buy it, we're not going to custody it. ... I don't think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy bitcoin." It's not surprising that banks have their eye on this move. President Trump has courted cryptocurrency enthusiasts with promises to create a federal cryptocurrency reserve and make other investments as president. However, it's also not surprising that they're hanging back. The risk is high, and anti-money laundering rules and other regulations could sharply limit their activities, with no guarantees yet as to how those rules may change. When banks do enter the game, it will likely be in small ways, as partners to existing organizations. They may also want to create a stablecoin of their own. It's in the best interests of the American public for legal protections regarding cryptocurrency to be strengthened and for banks to be cautious. All the computing power needed is bad for the environment, at least until we switch to a more eco-friendly cryptocurrency. In the meantime, until banking regulators speak up, we're unlikely to see much change in crypto banking. Do you think the federal government should give us tax breaks to improve our homes? Definitely Only for certain upgrades Let each state decide instead No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Sign in to access your portfolio
