News
Elon Musk sets the record straight over allegations that Tesla donated no ventilators to CA hospitals
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has set the record straight about his companies’ ventilator donations to hospitals in CA. Musk’s clarification comes on the heels of reports alleging that no hospitals in California have actually received any ventilators from the CEO or any of his companies.
On April 14, the Sacramento Bee published an editorial about Elon Musk’s initiative to donate ventilators to California hospitals. The editorial criticized Musk’s decision to supply non-invasive ventilators to hospitals, which were allegedly dangerous to use for COVID-19 patients. The piece’s author, whose name was not listed by the Bee, called the initiative a “fiasco” and alleged that “not one unit has been delivered – and Musk likely never had the real ventilators our hospitals need.”
The editorial appears to have spawned similar articles alleging the same point: that despite Musk’s commitment to donate ventilators, not one has reached a California hospital. On Thursday, a CNN report was published, citing a quote from a spokesperson of the California governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The allegations were similar to those in the Sacramento Bee’s editorial.
“Elon Musk and his team told the state that he had procured ventilators and wanted to distribute them directly to hospitals with shortages. The Administration is communicating every day with hospitals across the state about their ventilator supply and to date we have not heard of any hospital system that has received a ventilator directly from Tesla or Musk,” the spokesperson noted.
.@GavinNewsom please fix this misunderstanding— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 16, 2020
In response to CNN‘s recent report, Elon Musk provided screenshots of Tesla’s communication with hospitals in California, clearly indicating that ventilator donations had been made. Musk also urged CA Governor Gavin Newsom to address the misunderstanding.
In one of Musk’s shared emails, Tesla asked Phillip Franks of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services if any donated ventilators went into use. Franks noted in a reply on March 27 that the donated units performed well during testing, and that the machines will be put into use the next day.
-
- (Credit: Elon Musk/Twitter)
-
- (Credit: Elon Musk/Twitter)
Musk also shared a message from Tom Parker, the CEO of Mammoth Hospital in CA. Parker thanked Musk and Tesla for ventilators that were donated to the hospital, stating that the units will be invaluable as COVID-19 cases in the state increased. “These ventilators will be quickly deployed in our hospital in anticipation of the coming wave of patients who will be suffering from the most severe effects of COVID-19,” Parker wrote.
At the core of the criticism against Elon Musk and Tesla’s donations is argument that most of the units donated thus far are non-invasive ventilators. While these units cannot perform as well as the $35,000 invasive ventilators used for critically-ill patients, the non-invasive units can still be used as backup ventilators for those that are not severely ill from the coronavirus. And during a global pandemic, where cases are rising rapidly, every ventilator counts.
A team of our specialists and medical students are reconfiguring hundreds of donated machines that are typically used at home for #SleepApnea and deploying them as ventilators to be used for severely ill patients who are hospitalized with #COVID19: https://t.co/qd9VKBk9jT pic.twitter.com/KXrh9h8gJP— Mount Sinai Health System (@MountSinaiNYC) April 3, 2020
Also neglected by the Sacramento Bee‘s editorial and CNN‘s report is the fact that the non-invasive ventilators donated by Tesla can actually be reconfigured to work for severely-ill COVID-19 patients. An example of this was done in Mouth Sinai NYC, which also received ventilators from the electric car maker. These efforts from the Mount Sinai team show one thing: the non-invasive ventilators from Tesla are invaluable in the fight against COVID-19, contrary to what poorly-researched critics would allege.
Another special thank you goes out to @Tesla for a donation of Medtronic invasive ventilators to NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln #inTheBronx. pic.twitter.com/BH9SSj4Bbw— NYC Health + Hospitals (@NYCHealthSystem) April 4, 2020
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
