No, Elon Musk did not “launch new attack” on General Motors (GM) or President Biden yesterday, as The Street recently reported. I thought I would clear this up here since it was my own tweet and Elon Musk’s response to my tweet might have somehow gotten misinterpreted.
According to the article, “Tesla’s CEO is resentful and never misses an opportunity to attack Detroit auto giant GM.”
The article also said that Elon Musk doesn’t want to promote the brands of his rivals and that GM is his favorite target. It, in my opinion, painted GM as the victim and Elon Musk as a bully. So I’d like to clear up some things and share what actually happened.
Elon Musk Didn’t “Launch New Attack” On Anyone
Yesterday, I shared a tweet by Sawyer Merrit with my own comment. I tagged both President Biden and Elon Musk. You can see the tweet below. This was and still is my opinion on GM’s decision to invest $1 billion into Mexico for an EV factory instead of investing those funds into American jobs.
Teslas are the most made-in-USA vehicles
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 19, 2022
As you can see for yourself, Elon Musk did not mention GM or President Biden. He mentioned Tesla and his reference was to Tesla being named the most American-made car by Cars.com.
GM’s Commitment To Mexico
I shared my thoughts about GM’s move to invest $1 billion in Mexico for an EV plant in this article. And there’s more. GM shared a statement on its Mexico media site where the company’s President and CEO, Francisco Garza said (translated by Google into English):
“We are very proud to contribute to the materialization of GM’s Vision of Zero Collisions, Zero Emissions, Zero Congestion, contributing to the manufacture of electric vehicles.”
“We trust that the necessary economic conditions will be met so that eventually the Complex can increase the workforce for one more shift in some operations. We are grateful to the Federal Government and the Government of Coahuila for promoting this investment. This is great news to continue celebrating GM’s more than 85 years in Mexico and show our commitment to the country.”
American Jobs Vs Mexican Jobs
It seems that my theory in the tweet that Elon Musk responded to could be correct. I saw this earlier this morning.:
Salaries at the GM plant in Mexico where the Chevy Blazer EV will be made start at just $4,492 a year. $GM pic.twitter.com/G9ZSWy3WGv
— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) July 20, 2022
@WholeMarsBlog shared screenshots of the salaries at the GM plant in Mexico where the new Chevy Blazer EV will be made. The starting pay for Operations is MX$91,950 per year which translates to $4,475.78 per year. There are other salaries with similarly low numbers.
In comparison, GlassDoor shows that technician salaries at GM average out at $63,166 annually. So, it seems that GM will be saving some serious money by outsourcing some of these jobs to Mexico.
My 2.5¢
Clearly, GM is trying to save money. And GM CEO, Mary Barra, recently expressed her confidence that GM can beat Tesla. You can draw your own conclusions from these two scenarios.
I do think that using Elon Musk to paint GM as a victim while downplaying its decision to make its Chevy Blazer EV in Mexico instead of the U.S. is really shady. And using my own tweet to do so as well. No, Elon Musk didn’t “launch new attack” on President Biden or GM. No one attacked them.
I just shared my own opinion on the matter and he pointed out which brand was the most American-made car.
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
