Elon Musk
Former OpenAI employees show support for Musk lawsuit
The employees claim that the removal of non-profit status would “fundamentally violate” OpenAI’s mission.
After Elon Musk filed a lawsuit last year against the Sam Altman-run AI firm OpenAI, a group of former employees of the company this week has filed a legal brief supporting the xAI and Tesla leader’s case.
On Friday, a group of 12 former OpenAI employees said in a court filing that the company’s restructuring efforts would “fundamentally violate” the original non-profit mission, as detailed in a report from Reuters. The employees said they were in technical and leadership positions at the company, along with explaining that they believed the not-for-profit model was important for a variety of reasons.
During their time there, oversight of the non-profit was considered a key part of the company’s discussions, according to the group. Although this approach was regularly emphasized during their time at the company, recent pressures from investors to restructure the company into a for-profit could impede on crucial elements of the company’s mission.
The former employees argued that the non-profit structure helped in recruiting efforts, as many of the company’s staffers simply joined because they believed in the original mission. OpenAI, however, responded by claiming that the original mission wouldn’t change even if the structure does.
“Our Board has been very clear: our nonprofit isn’t going anywhere and our mission will remain the same,” the company said in a statement.
🚨NEWS: OpenAI CEO shares some of his thoughts on Elon Musk during a conversation with Bloomberg TV. As per Altman, OpenAI is not for sale.❌
Altman’s comments followed reports that Musk and several large investors have offered $97.4 billion to acquire the nonprofit controlling… pic.twitter.com/bDN8OBr2oR
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 11, 2025
READ MORE ON ELON MUSK AND OPENAI: Elon Musk’s criticism about ChatGPT’s ‘woke’ nature gets response from OpenAI co-founder
Musk, who helped start OpenAI but left in 2018, has been highly critical of Altman and OpenAI’s efforts to become a for-profit in recent years. He officially filed a lawsuit against the ChatGPT maker last February, before dropping it in June and reviving it in August.
In the suit, Musk alleged that he had been “betrayed by Altman and his accomplices” after investing around $45 million dollars into the company, while OpenAI and investor Microsoft “established an opaque web of for-profit OpenAI affiliates, engaged in rampant self-dealing.”
In November, Musk’s legal team filed a motion for an injunction with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over the case, claiming that “irreparable harm” would occur if it wasn’t granted. The judge last month denied the injunction request, saying that Musk’s recent offer to buy OpenAI for $97.4 billion undermined his claims of harm.
“Musk has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits,” Rogers said in response to the request for an injunction, adding that the original $45 million “is just a lot of money [to invest] on a handshake.”
Despite denying the request, the judge did say that the case could proceed in a California courtroom as soon as this fall, “given the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred.”
Elon Musk
How much of SpaceX will Elon Musk own after IPO will surprise you
SpaceX’s IPO filing confirms Musk will maintain his voting power to make key decisions for the company.
Elon Musk will retain dominant voting control of SpaceX after it goes public, according to the company’s IPO prospectus that was filed with the SEC. The filing reveals a dual-class equity structure giving Class B shareholders 10 votes each, concentrating power with Musk and a handful of other insiders, while Class A shares sold to public investors carry one vote.
Musk holds approximately 42% of SpaceX’s equity and controls roughly 79% of its votes through super-voting shares. He will simultaneously serve as CEO, CTO, and chairman of the nine-member board after the listing. Beyond that, the filing includes provisions that may limit shareholders’ influence over board elections and legal actions, forcing disputes into arbitration and restricting where they can be brought.
The case for Musk holding this level of control is grounded in SpaceX’s actual history. The company’s most important bets, from reusable rockets to a global satellite internet constellation, were decisions that ran against conventional aerospace thinking and would likely have faced resistance from a board accountable to investor gains. Fully reusable rockets were considered economically irrational by established industry players for years. Starlink, which now generates over $4 billion in annual operating profit, was widely dismissed as financially unviable when it was proposed. The argument for concentrated founder control seems straightforward, and the decisions that built SpaceX into what it is today required someone willing to ignore consensus and absorb years of losses.
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
For context, Musk’s position is significantly more dominant than Zuckerberg’s at Meta. The comparison with Tesla is also worth noting. When Tesla did its IPO in 2010, it did not issue dual-class shares. Musk has only recently pushed for enhanced voting protection, proposing at least 25% control at Tesla in 2024 after selling shares to fund his Twitter acquisition left him with around 13%.
SpaceX has clearly learned from that experience and structured the IPO differently by planning to allocate up to 30% of shares to retail investors, roughly three times the typical norm for a large offering. The roadshow is expected to begin the week of June 8, with a Nasdaq listing rumored to be a $1.75 trillion valuation and a $75 billion raise.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
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.