News
Here’s exactly what Elon Musk said about letting Trump back on Twitter
During his interview with Financial Times, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that he would allow former U.S. President Donald Trump to return to Twitter if his pending $44 billion deal for the social media platform goes through. Some of Musk’s comments are being construed as he would allow Trump, who was banned from Twitter on January 8, 2021, to return to the platform with no limits. Instead, Musk’s statements regarding the reversal of Trump’s Twitter ban were more general.
Musk said permanent bans should be extremely rare and reserved for accounts that are not human, meaning they are either spam or bots. If “there is no legitimacy to the account at all,” as Musk put it, the account should not be allowed to appear on Twitter. Musk stated on several occasions that Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey agrees with him on this point.
Here is what Musk said, word for word, to the question “Are you planning to let Donald Trump back on?”:
Musk: “Well, uh, I think the general question of ‘Should Twitter have permanent bans,’ um, and, I’ve talked with Jack Dorsey about this, and, he and I are of the same mind, which is that permanent bans should be extremely rare, and really reserved for people who are trying to — for accounts that are bots or spam/scam accounts, where there’s just no legitimacy to the account at all. Um, I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump; I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country, and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice. He is now going to be on Truth Social, as will a large part of the, sort of, the Right in the United States. And, so, I think this could end up being frankly worse than having a single forum where everyone can debate. Um, so, I guess the answer is that I would reverse the permanent ban. I don’t own Twitter, yet, so this is not like a thing that will definitely happen, because, what if I don’t own Twitter? But, my opinion, and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares this opinion, is that we should not have permanent bans. Now, that doesn’t mean that somebody gets to say whatever they want to say. If they say something that is illegal, or, otherwise, you know, destructive to the world, then there should perhaps be a “time out,” a temporary suspension, or that particular Tweet should be made invisible or have very limited traction. But, I think perma-bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a “town square,” where everyone can voice their opinion. I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme.”
Interviewer: “Even after he egged on the crowd who went to the U.S. Capitol, some of them carrying nooses. You still think it was a mistake to remove him?”
Musk: “I think if there are Tweets that are wrong and bad, they should be either deleted or made invisible and a suspension, a temporary suspension is appropriate. But not a permanent ban.”
Interviewer: “So if the deal completes, he might potentially come back on but with the understanding that if he does something similar again, he’ll be back in the Sin Bin?”
Musk: “He has publicly stated that he will not be coming back to Twitter, um and that he will only be on Truth Social. And this is the point I am trying to make, which is perhaps not getting across, is that banning Trump from Twitter didn’t end Trump’s voice. It will amplify it among the Right, and this is why it is morally wrong and flat-out stupid.”
Musk, whose $44 billion offer for Twitter was officially accepted on April 25, still has to wait for shareholders to vote to confirm the sale of the platform. The deal should be completed by October 24, 2022, according to SEC documents.
Musk’s remarks regarding the Trump Twitter ban can also be heard below.
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
