News
Elon Musk wants the Government to be a referee, not a player in the game of industry and innovation
Elon Musk is one of the most innovative minds to ever exist in the tech community. With his multiple companies providing successful changes in how some industries, like automotive, are looked at, Musk is a proven CEO with a track record to back it up. His many ideas basically changed the idea of what it is like to drive a car, which many of us thought would be dominated by gas and diesel-powered engines for years to come. An innovative mind and a lot of hard work undoubtedly contributed to Tesla’s success, and Musk has no interest in giving credit to anyone who didn’t earn it.
With the election coming to a close and a new Presidential campaign being selected to run the United States for the next four years, Musk was recently asked during an interview with the Wall Street Journal whether President-Elect Joe Biden’s plans to spend big on industry and innovation were a good thing. Musk doesn’t seem to have a problem with the idea, but he is vocal about the fact that the government should do more regulating than contributing. The role of Government, after all, is to enact laws and make sure they are abided by citizens. Additionally, assisting with companies’ innovation is something the Government shouldn’t stick its nose up at. Still, Musk just hopes that it plays more of an administrative role instead of becoming a “player in the game.”
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
“It’s the Government’s role to establish the rules of the game and then ensure that those rules are properly enforced,” Musk said. The CEO even compared the Government’s role to that of a referee in a game of football: Know the rules, enforce them correctly, make sure the game is fair.
What the Government doesn’t need to do is stay out of the way of the big companies who are working to innovate the processes of daily life to benefit them and their objectives. “I think when the Government does not do a great job is when they want to not just be a referee on the field, they want to be a player on the field. This does not end up in a good situation.”
The issue with the Government overreaching into the field of industry and innovation is that they will “pick technology winners and losers” instead of letting companies play out their innovation themselves. This could lead to small companies being undermined even if they have ideas or technology that larger companies don’t have access to.
This scenario, if Government was overly involved in tech and innovation, could have crippled Tesla’s efforts when the company was just starting to churn out vehicles in 2008. Even though Tesla had established itself as a player in electric vehicles, it was a small, relatively unknown company that faced massive problems due to lack of funds. Nearly shutting its doors after issues with the original Roadster, Tesla somehow overcame the adversity and received more investor money.
Now, imagine if the Government would have been a player instead of a referee in this scenario. It would have likely given a large financial assistance package to a well-developed, large scale automaker like Ford or GM to develop EVs. Instead, it stayed out of the innovation portion of the equation and let the players decide the game for themselves. Tesla ended up becoming the leader in EVs, while GM and Ford are failing to catch up. It’s fairly safe to say that without Tesla, EVs would not be what they are today. The legacy automakers that exist in the universe of automotive manufacturing would likely have cranked out one or two low-range models because their primary focus is still on gas-powered cars and not on electrification.
This whole picture perfectly aligns with how Tesla’s story has played out thus far. It is fairly obvious that the Government in 2008 would have sided with a company with proven infrastructure, and not some company who had a shot in the dark to change the entire framework of vehicle manufacturing. This is where Musk made his next point: Make the rules that incentivize the outcome, not the path.
The ultimate goal is to let companies figure out issues on their own. There is no reason to have Government programs essentially hold the hands of private industry. There needs to be more of a focus on the end goal and not the path a company takes to get there. Rarely is the road to success a straight and narrow path. Many companies, Tesla being a prime example, have to fight and struggle to create a new, innovative project. Tesla’s story is perfect evidence that the end goal takes a lot of persistence and it doesn’t need to be filled with hand-holding from large Government entities. While Biden’s plan to pump money into innovation and industry may help some companies get back on their feet in dire times of need, it shouldn’t hold the hands of these large companies whose job it is to figure out the answer to problems.
When large car companies begin to manufacture and deliver electric vehicles that are good for consumers, then they should be rewarded. Riding on the coattails of Government assistance packages that don’t necessarily guarantee innovation is the wrong way to go about things. When companies prove that they are in the business of creating a great product, then the rewards should come in. It’s that simple.
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
