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!
Tesla analyst Gary Black of The Future Fund claims that the company is making a big mistake getting rid of the Model S and Model X. Instead, he believes another vehicle within the company’s lineup should be discontinued: the Cybertruck.
Black divested The Future Fund from all Tesla holdings last year, but he still covers the stock as an analyst as it falls in the technology and autonomy sectors, which he covers.
In a new comment on Thursday, Black said the Cybertruck should be the vehicle Tesla gets rid of due to the negatives it has drawn to the company.
The Cybertruck is also selling in an underwhelming fashion considering the production capacity Tesla has set aside for it. It’s worth noting it is still the best-selling electric pickup on the market, and it has outlasted other EV truck projects as other manufacturers are receding their efforts.
Black said:
“IMHO it’s a mistake to keep Tesla Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully autonomous?”
IMHO it’s a mistake to keep $TSLA Cybertruck which has negative brand equity and sold 10,000 units last year, and discontinue S/X which have strong repeat brand loyalty and together sold 30K units and are highly profitable. Why not discontinue CT and covert S/X to be fully…
— Gary Black (@garyblack00) January 29, 2026
On Wednesday, CEO Elon Musk confirmed that Tesla planned to transition Model S and Model X production lines at the Fremont Factory to handle manufacturing efforts of the Optimus Gen 3 robot.
Musk said that it was time to wind down the S and X programs “with an honorable discharge,” also noting that the two cars are not major contributors to Tesla’s mission any longer, as its automotive division is more focused on autonomy, which will be handled by Model 3, Model Y, and Cybercab.
Tesla begins Cybertruck deliveries in a new region for the first time
The news has drawn conflicting perspectives, with many Tesla fans upset about the decision, especially as it ends the production of the largest car in the company’s lineup. Tesla’s focus is on smaller ride-sharing vehicles, especially as the vast majority of rides consist of two or fewer passengers.
The S and X do not fit in these plans.
Nevertheless, the Cybertruck fits in Tesla’s future plans. Musk said the pickup will be needed for the transportation of local goods. Musk also said Cybertruck would be transitioned to an autonomous line.
In a groundbreaking new report from Reuters, SpaceX is reportedly discussing merger possibilities with xAI ahead of the space exploration company’s plans to IPO later this year, in what would be a blockbuster move.
The outlet said it would combine rockets and Starlink satellites, as well as the X social media platform and AI project Grok under one roof. The report cites “a person briefed on the matter and two recent company filings seen by Reuters.”
Musk, nor SpaceX or xAI, have commented on the report, so, as of now, it is unconfirmed.
With that being said, the proposed merger would bring shares of xAI in exchange for shares of SpaceX. Both companies were registered in Nevada to expedite the transaction, according to the report.
On January 21, both entities were registered in Nevada. The report continues:
“One of them, a limited liability company, lists SpaceX and Bret Johnsen, the company’s chief financial officer, as managing members, while the other lists Johnsen as the company’s only officer, the filings show.”
The source also stated that some xAI executives could be given the option to receive cash in lieu of SpaceX stock. No agreement has been reached, nothing has been signed, and the timing and structure, as well as other important details, have not been finalized.
SpaceX is valued at $800 billion and is the most valuable privately held company, while xAI is valued at $230 billion as of November. SpaceX could be going public later this year, as Musk has said as recently as December that the company would offer its stock publicly.
The plans could help move along plans for large-scale data centers in space, something Musk has discussed on several occasions over the past few months.
At the World Economic Forum last week, Musk said:
“It’s a no-brainer for building solar-powered AI data centers in space, because as I mentioned, it’s also very cold in space. The net effect is that the lowest cost place to put AI will be space and that will be true within two to three years, three at the latest.”
He also said on X that “the most important thing in the next 3-4 years is data centers in space.”
If the report is true and the two companies end up coming together, it would not be the first time Musk’s companies have ended up coming together. He used Tesla stock to purchase SolarCity back in 2016. Last year, X became part of xAI in a share swap.
Tesla has announced it has hit a major milestone with Full Self-Driving subscriptions, shortly after it said it would exclusively offer the suite without the option to purchase it outright.
Tesla announced on Wednesday during its Q4 Earnings Call for 2025 that it had officially eclipsed the one million subscription mark for its Full Self-Driving suite. This represented a 38 percent increase year-over-year.
This is up from the roughly 800,000 active subscriptions it reported last year. The company has seen significant increases in FSD adoption over the past few years, as in 2021, it reported just 400,000. In 2022, it was up to 500,000 and, one year later, it had eclipsed 600,000.
NEWS: For the first time, Tesla has revealed how many people are subscribed or have purchased FSD (Supervised).
Active FSD Subscriptions:
• 2025: 1.1 million
• 2024: 800K
• 2023: 600K
• 2022: 500K
• 2021: 400K pic.twitter.com/KVtnyANWcs— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 28, 2026
In mid-January, CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would transition away from giving the option to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, opting for the subscription program exclusively.
Musk said on X:
“Tesla will stop selling FSD after Feb 14. FSD will only be available as a monthly subscription thereafter.”
The move intends to streamline the Full Self-Driving purchase option, and gives Tesla more control over its revenue, and closes off the ability to buy it outright for a bargain when Musk has said its value could be close to $100,000 when it reaches full autonomy.
It also caters to Musk’s newest compensation package. One tranche requires Tesla to achieve 10 million active FSD subscriptions, and now that it has reached one million, it is already seeing some growth.
The strategy that Tesla will use to achieve this lofty goal is still under wraps. The most ideal solution would be to offer a less expensive version of the suite, which is not likely considering the company is increasing its capabilities, and it is becoming more robust.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Currently, Tesla’s FSD subscription price is $99 per month, but Musk said this price will increase, which seems counterintuitive to its goal of increasing the take rate. With that being said, it will be interesting to see what Tesla does to navigate growth while offering a robust FSD suite.
Tesla analyst claims another vehicle, not Model S and X, should be discontinued
SpaceX reportedly discussing merger with xAI ahead of blockbuster IPO
