News
A Timeline of Nikola’s Trevor Milton: From Fictional to Fraudulent
Earlier today, it was announced that former Nikola Motor CEO Trevor Milton had been indicted on three counts of fraud by U.S. prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) following comments and claims he made regarding the automaker he used to run. Through the years, Milton has gone from fictional to fraudulent, never bringing a truly functional product to the market or to demonstrations for that matter, and allegedly lying to investors along the way.
Established in 2014 by Milton, Nikola worked toward revolutionary new battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell automotive powertrains for commercial and passenger vehicles. The beginning of the company’s somewhat inevitable fall was marked by the release of a shocking report from Hindenburg Research that claimed the company’s first vehicle demonstration of the Nikola One semi-truck was misleading, claiming the vehicle was not self-propelled. Nikola initially denied this but then admitted the vehicle was placed on a low-grade hill to appear to be functional. The company was not willing to put any more money into a prototype.
(Photo: Isaac Sloan/Nikola Motor)
However, Nikola’s long journey, which has culminated in the arrest of Milton with charges to be formally announced later today, started long before Hindenburg’s report.
- 2009 – Trevor Milton launches dHybrid after selling an alarm sales company for $300,000. dHybrid entered a contract with Swift, a major transportation company in the heavy trucking sector. Swift agreed to convert up to 800 trucks, securing a $16 million contract for dHybrid shortly after its establishment.
- Swift would later sue dHybrid, claiming the company’s truck did not work and some company executives “misappropriated capital for personal use,” according to the Hindenburg report.
- Hindenburg also claims that Milton reached out to dHybrid investors, claiming the contract with Swift was valued at $250 million – $300 million.
- 2014 – dHybrid acquired by Worthington for $15.9 million.
- 2016 – Nikola announces it will unveil the Nikola One electric semi, claiming that it will be fully functional at the December 1st event. Nikola claimed to have “The Holy Grail” of hydrogen tech for trucking just months before the event.
- 2017 – Nikola signs a deal with Powercell AB, a Swedish company, to supply hydrogen fuel cell stacks. Nikola also signed with Bosch, who agreed to help assist in the production of Nikola Two prototypes.
- 2018 – Nikola begins to market the Nikola One as the “largest energy consumer” in America. Targeting the Tesla Semi, Nikola filed a $2 billion lawsuit against Tesla, alleging that Tesla violated a design patent of the Nikola One. Several elements, including the wraparound windshield, mid-entry door, front fenders, and the electric truck’s aerodynamic body, were all claimed by Nikola to be taken by Tesla.
- Nikola said in November that it had refunded all 11,550 deposits for its vehicles. It did this to show that it was not operating on customer’s money
- 2019 – Nikola World event shows five zero-emission vehicles that will eventually produce and release. The company announced a partnership with Anheuser-Busch, who ordered 800 trucks from Nikola.
- Nikola offers Tesla a new design for its Cybertruck. Milton extends the pickup truck design to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, giving it to him as a “backup plan” if Cybertruck pre-orders were unsuccessful. Tesla has received over 1 million pre-orders for the Cybertruck since November 2019.
- 2020 – Nikola and GM come to a partnership to see GM handle fuel cell and battery systems in early September. The deal gives GM a $2 billion equity stake.
- Hindenburg releases its report on Nikola called, “Nikola — How to Parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the Largest Auto OEM in America.” The report claims Nikola is “an intricate fraud” by gathering phone calls, emails, text messages, photographs, and other pieces of evidence that claim the company has been misleading shareholders. Hindenburg claims they’ve “never seen this level deception at a public company, especially of this size.”
- Nikola admits that the Nikola One was not self-propelled.
- Nikola CEO Trevor Milton steps down from his post at the helm of the company. “Nikola is truly in my blood and always will be, and the focus should be on the Company and its world-changing mission, not me,” Milton said. Stephen Girsky became the new Chairman of the Board.
- Nikola plans the next “Nikola World” event, but it is postponed as uncertainty due to its lack of executive leadership continues.
- GM reconsiders its partnership and eventually cuts back the terms of its conglomeration. NKLA stock falls 24% as GM partially backs out of the deal.
- 2021 – Nikola files a 10-K filing with the SEC following its Q4 2020 Earnings Report and admits its former frontman Milton misled shareholders by lying. The company said that several statements made by Milton were “inaccurate in whole or in part when made.”
- Today, July 29th – Trevor Milton surrenders to federal authorities on three counts of fraud for lying about “nearly all aspects” of Nikola’s business. Milton is required to forfeit all properties that are traceable to the commission of his offenses.
Milton will be presented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York at 11 am EST today.
*LIVE EVENT*
There will be a press conference today at 11:00 a.m. to announce charges against Trevor Milton, the founder of Nikola Corporation and one-time executive chairman of the company. livestreamed on Facebook @USAOSDNY. pic.twitter.com/RPFuuUcuXq
— US Attorney SDNY (@SDNYnews) July 29, 2021
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
