Investor's Corner
Tesla’s Elon Musk faces the SEC in hearing over contempt charges (Updates)
The day after the release of Tesla’s Q1 vehicle delivery and production report, CEO Elon Musk headed to a Manhattan courthouse to face the charges leveled against him by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC accused Musk of violating the terms of his settlement with the agency when the CEO tweeted on February 19 that Tesla will produce around 500k vehicles in 2019, echoing one of his statements from the Q4 2018 earnings call.
Musk arrived in the courthouse on Thursday in light spirits. Smiling to cameras, the Tesla CEO told reporters that he respects the American justice system. “I have great respect for the justice system and I think the judges in the American system are outstanding,” Musk said. When prompted by veteran CNBC reporter Phil LeBeau if he feels the same way about the SEC, Musk laughed and walked forward.
The SEC’s arguments
The courtroom was packed as Elon Musk and the SEC’s legal team faced off before U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan. Each side is given 45 minutes to express their arguments. The agency went first, represented by SEC attorney Cheryl Crumpton, who immediately claimed that Musk “recklessly tweeted out information that has no basis in fact (credit to Matt Robinson of Bloomberg, who is currently conducting a Live Blog of the hearing).”
Explaining further, Crumpton stated that the requirement that Musk get pre-approval for his tweets was “the heart of the relief” that the government had sought as part of its settlement. The SEC lawyer also noted it has become pretty clear “over the course of the last few weeks” that Musk does not intend to comply with last year’s settlement terms. Crumpton added that the agreement does not require every single tweet to be pre-approved, provided that the information in the posts was immaterial. “The communication we are talking about here is very, very different,” she said.
The SEC lawyer also pointed the blame to Tesla, who allegedly is failing to control the conduct of its CEO. “Tesla’s conduct is also troubling to the SEC. This court ordered Tesla to implement a mandatory pre-approval process, but they are apparently fine with Mr. Musk making up his own procedure. Tesla still seems unwilling to exercise any meaningful control over the conduct of its CEO,” Crumpton replied.
Judge Nathan, for her part, asked the SEC lawyer if Musk would need to get approval for tweets that reiterated information that had already been disclosed. The judge went through different hypotheticals with the SEC lawyer, such as repeating earlier guidance. “We’re not saying always yes or always no to that. It depends is the answer,” Crumpton said.
“This is a material statement no matter how you cut it, and it was a violation to not get it pre-approved,” Crumpton added.
For his alleged violations of his settlement, the SEC lawyer called on the court to give Musk a series of escalating fines if he continues to violate the order. Crumpton also stated that the SEC wants the court to order Musk to report monthly on his compliance with the settlement. “We want the court to tell them that this has to observed in the way that it’s written,” the SEC lawyer said.
Response from Tesla’s legal team
With the SEC having completed its argument, it was time for Elon Musk’s legal team to argue their points. Tesla lawyer John Hueston stated that “it’s very clear that Mr. Musk retained discretion in the policy. The policy makes clear that the tweet is subject to a fact-based determination by Mr. Musk.” The Tesla lawyer also stated that Musk’s decision to decide what’s material information was negotiated. “That’s exactly what Tesla negotiated for and got,” Hueston said.
The Tesla lawyer also argued that the SEC is currently pretending to be shocked that Musk gets to decide what is material information and what is not, but that is exactly what the the order says. “They agreed to take out language saying that everything has to be approved. There has to be an oversight process and there is an oversight process. They’re not happy about that today,” he said.
Musk’s legal team stated there is not a clear enough standard to use the harsh recourse of contempt. Instead, Hueston stated that the SEC should have attempted to work things out with Elon Musk and Tesla before bringing the matter to court. “What the SEC should have done was approach in good faith and try to work things out,” the Tesla lawyer said. In response, Judge Nathan noted that her intent is “not only to invite it but to order it.” The judge also added that she will tell the parties to create a new agreement that incorporates the SEC’s concerns.
Addressing Musk’ counsel, Judge Nathan inquired about a scenario in which the CEO will be violating the terms of his settlement with the SEC. When the Tesla lawyer noted that he couldn’t think of one, the judge replied “You’re not very imaginative.”
Continuing his points, Hueston noted that the 15 post-order tweets that were cited by SEC as proof of Musk’s violation of his settlement shows that the agency believes “that, apparently, contempt can fall on him for things that he’s tweeting” even if the information had already been disclosed. “They have not shown that the proof of non-compliance is clear and convincing. This is not someone who’s wantonly saying he doesn’t care about processes and procedures. That’s someone who is trying his best to comply and has been diligent,” the Tesla lawyer said (credit to Bloomberg‘s Chris Dolmetsch for the update).
The SEC’s Rebuttal
The SEC lawyer returned stating that the agency did not rush into its request to have Musk held in contempt at all. “Its not that we rushed into court on the first opportunity. There have been a number of tweets over time.” Crumpton further added that the SEC assumed Musk will comply with the terms of his settlement despite his statements in 60 Minutes, where he explicitly commented that he does not respect the SEC.
Hearing Adjourned
Following the SEC’s rebuttal, Judge Nathan asserted that compliance with court orders is not optional, nor is it a game, regardless of whether you are a “small potato or a big fish.” She also noted that government lawyers must take all steps necessary to reach a resolution before invoking contempt, before adding that she has “serious concerns that whatever I decide here the issue will not be finally resolved.”
Judge Nathan ordered the two parties to arrange a meeting and send a letter to the court within two weeks. The parties will be required to indicate if they have reached an agreement or not. If no agreement is reached then, Elon Musk’s legal team and the SEC will hear from her in due course.
The hearing was adjourned after. In a statement following the hearing, Musk stated that he was “very impressed with Judge Nathan’s analysis.”
Investor's Corner
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.
The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.
The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.
The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.
The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
SpaceX’s Gwynne Shotwell just made a quiet gesture toward Tesla
Tesla Roadster owners to get “Flying Stunt Mode” and looping track access
How to use Grok Bot to block spam calls and texts
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
