Elon Musk
OPINION: Tesla Vandalism lawsuit should be the first of many
The filing of a lawsuit by a Tesla owner who had his vehicle vandalized by a brainwashed member of what is being called the “Tesla Takeover” movement should be the first of many.
For the past few months, we have seen so many instances of intimidation by those who oppose Tesla, CEO Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump. These occurrences have been incredibly frequent and have varied in terms of their severity. It’s been as arbitrary as keying a car, and as violent as gunshots and Molotov cocktails being shot and thrown at showrooms.
The side of the perpetrators seems to be under the impression that President Trump and Musk are punishing those who have differing viewpoints as if their very livelihoods are under attack. The problem is, although government spending and some government programs are being modified or eliminated, there is no specific group being targeted, which is a big reason the use of the word “Nazi” has been baffling to me over the past few months.
That other side will have you believe there is a right-wing force that has taken over the government and aims to violate the rights of everyone who is unlike them. Ironically, it is precisely what the “protestors” are doing. Don’t agree with us? Okay. We’ll damage your vehicle.
Although the Trump administration and the FBI have set up specific measures to investigate instances of vandalism and hopefully eliminate it altogether, things have not truly calmed down. In fact, it seems it is getting worse.
However, a lawsuit filed by a victim of one of these senseless attacks has set a new precedent: damage my car, you will find yourself in a lawsuit:
🚨 The first-ever lawsuit against a man caught on video using Sentry Mode as he vandalized a Tesla has been filed.
An anonymous Tesla owner has sued Rafael Hernandez, who was arrested after Sentry Mode caught video of him keying a vehicle.
The Plaintiff is suing for infliction…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 26, 2025
In actuality, this might be the best strategy for minimizing the instances of vandalism we have seen over the past several months. Nothing seems to be working, and the attackers, who appear to be of all shapes, sizes, and ages, only seem to be doing it more often, despite being caught on camera by Sentry Mode.
The suit that was filed against Rafael Hernandez, who keyed a Model X at DFW Airport, seeks $1m in damages. While it is unlikely he will be awarded that significant sum, what Hernandez ends up paying could be significantly more than just the amount of repairing the scratch.
This all funnels down to one specific point: Tesla drivers are simply that, people who drove to buy and drive a Tesla. Driving a car is not a political statement; it is, in many ways, simply a choice of convenience. People choose EVs for many reasons, with home charging, performance, and look being several of them.
Ask 100 Tesla owners why they bought the car, and I’m sure many would not say, “Because I love Elon Musk and agree with everything that comes out of his mouth.”
I am an Elon Musk fan, but I don’t agree with everything he has done or will do. I don’t agree with everything my parents, my friends, or my family do. I am not a loyalist to anyone except myself. This is where I find the vandalism to be so distasteful.
If Toyota’s CEO came out and said things that were controversial, for example, “We’re not transitioning to EVs because we don’t feel it’s the right time with demand,” something that was stated a few years ago as a part of their strategy, do you think Tesla owners were keying Toyotas? No.
Support brands that line up with your ideologies. Avoid ones that don’t. People of all ages do this peacefully. If you want to hurt a brand, don’t give them or their customers your money. Keying a Tesla might result in both with this initial lawsuit.
The point is, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Vandalism is not the right way. Not only are you disrupting someone’s life who has nothing to do with Tesla, but now you’re putting yourself in the line of fire for a particularly substantial sum of money. Additionally, you’re not winning over any fans with this type of reaction. Nobody said “I now see their point since they keyed my car, I agree with them.”
I am hopeful that this lawsuit will encourage Tesla to go after the violent vandals who have attacked its stores. I am hopeful that this lawsuit will encourage Tesla owners to go after the violent vandals who have had their cars damaged by senseless people who have differing political views.
Perhaps this is the move that will start to bring down the frequency of these attacks.
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.
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 bolsters App with new safety, insurance, and storage features
Tesla is building private Superchargers just for Robotaxi
