News
Tesla’s proven anti-pandemic safety plan has fallen on deaf ears amid an anti-Elon Musk narrative
One of the most remarkable things that one can witness is the birth and spread of a narrative. Narratives are powerful, as they are capable of affecting and perhaps even changing the perception of people on a particular person or topic. Such a narrative is forming in the Tesla-sphere today: one that completely ignores a company’s proven efforts to battle the coronavirus, and one that brands the electric car maker’s CEO as a de facto villain that cares not for his employees.
Amidst the ongoing issues surrounding the reopening of the Fremont factory, Tesla publicly shared a Return to Work Playbook that it will be using to protect and prevent its workers from contracting the coronavirus. The strategies outlined in the playbook are modeled after the company’s efforts in Gigafactory Shanghai, which successfully battled the virus when it was ravaging China. Tesla’s Shanghai plant was barely affected by the pandemic, and it is back in full operations today.
Alameda County officials have not given Tesla the green light to resume operations in the Fremont plant, a factor that has resulted in heated online discussions between Elon Musk, TSLA critics and supporters, and local government officials. County officials argue that Tesla is yet to meet certain guidelines that would allow its formal approval to reopen the Fremont factory, but no details about these criteria have been released thus far. This has resulted in a rather sticky situation. The county says Tesla is not fulfilling safety guidelines, but it would not specify which.
Strangely enough, Alameda County has also not discussed which parts of Tesla’s Return to Work Playbook are inadequate. A look at the playbook shows several intensive safety protocols that the company will be adopting to prevent the spread of the virus. But even the existence of the playbook itself, and more importantly, its contents, do not seem to be acknowledged by representatives of Alameda County when they speak against the electric car maker’s intentions to reopen the Fremont plant.
CEO Elon Musk has ordered Tesla’s Fremont factory to reopen despite opposition from Alameda County officials. Musk even noted that if anyone were to be arrested due to the factory’s reopening, it should only be him. Such a move has triggered a wave of negative coverage on the CEO, with some articles claiming that Musk is “asking” to be arrested, or “daring” law enforcement to apprehend him. A narrative has also formed suggesting that Tesla and Musk are “forcing” Fremont’s employees to build cars without any regard for public safety. A report from The Washington Post even quoted a Fremont factory worker who reportedly stated that “we are extremely frustrated, angry, scared, that Elon is putting his cars before his workers.”
Such a narrative is compelling, of course, and it makes for a good story. Every tale needs a villain, and Musk, with his outspoken, controversial remarks about the ongoing lockdown, is the perfect target. What is missing from this narrative is the fact that Musk himself has been quoted time and time again, in both spoken and written form, that workers at the plant are not forced to come to work at all. “I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work. I will personally be at work, but that’s just me. Totally ok if you want to stay home for any reason,” Musk wrote back in March.
A look at the social media feeds from Fremont factory workers paint a much less controversial picture amidst the facility’s reopening as well. Inasmuch as mainstream reports today are running with a narrative that suggests Tesla is forcing employees to catch the virus or perish for the sake of Musk’s pockets, such sentiments do not seem universal for the company’s workforce. Some workers at the factory have noted that they appreciate that work is being resumed, and that the company is indeed following through with its stringent anti-pandemic strategies.
But such a scenario does not paint a narrative that is as compelling as a Machiavellian CEO forcing thousands of employees to perish for his personal profits. If Tesla is simply using a playbook that is tried and tested in Shanghai, and if workers are actually appreciative of the factory’s reopening, the anti-Elon Musk narrative gets lost. If there are no evil CEOs and mass numbers of employees being abused, Tesla’s Fremont facility becomes just a regular car production facility that is reopening its doors after a shutdown: one that is no different than car factories that are already open or are poised to reopen in the coming days.
Unfortunately, the draw of Musk and Tesla and their surrounding narratives are simply too tempting to ignore.
Tesla Return to Work Playbook by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
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.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
