News
Tesla releases Conflict Mineral report, extending history of humane mining practices
Tesla has released its Conflict Mineral Report for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 2019. In the report, Tesla outlined its processes for securing minerals used in its products, ensuring they are obtained in humane ways that do not involve any child labor, human trafficking, or slavery. Many of the minerals are obtained through the efforts of Tesla’s suppliers. The minerals must be “DRC Conflict Free,” meaning that the materials do not benefit “armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or any adjoining country.”
Tesla states that its conflict minerals are:
- Columbite-tantalite (Tantalum)
- Cassiterite (Tin)
- Gold
- Wolframite (Tungsten)
- and any derivatives of the above
The company states that any of its products, whether be its electric vehicles or its energy storage products, could contain some portion of these “conflict minerals.”
The materials are considered “conflict-free” as long as they do not benefit any of the armed groups in the DRC, and Tesla requires all of its suppliers to establish several processes to ensure the automaker humanely obtains them. The company writes:
“Tesla requires our suppliers to establish policies, due diligence frameworks, and management systems consistent with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (“OECD Guidance”). Tesla expects its suppliers to stay up to date with and to use validated conflict-free smelters and refiners assessed by the Responsible Mineral Initiative (“RMI”) and similar organizations.”
(Credit: Tesla)
Furthermore, Tesla also has internal guidelines for itself that it commits to. These include:
- Continuously evaluating our supply chain to address any risks related to conflict minerals, human trafficking, slavery, and child labor;
- Reviewing suppliers’ practices to ensure their compliance with Tesla’s policy
- Requiring our Tier 1 suppliers to certify that their materials incorporated into Tesla products comply with the applicable laws related to conflict minerals, slavery, child labor, and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business;
- Disciplining contractors and appropriate parties who fail to meet the requirement of our Code and Policy, including potential termination of contract;
- Ensuring appropriate Tesla employees are aware of issues regarding conflict minerals, human trafficking, child labor and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within Tesla’s supply chain;
- Investigating if Tesla has a reasonable basis to believe that a supplier may be engaging in human trafficking, slave or child labor, or use of conflict minerals;
- Transitioning away from purchasing goods or services from any supplier that is believed to be engaging in human trafficking, slave or child labor, or use of conflict minerals if the supplier does not take corrective actions.
Tesla also has a four-step Due Diligence process to ensure that all minerals are obtained humanely.
- Establish Strong Company Management Systems
- Identify and Assess Risk in the Supply Chain
- Identify and Assess Risk in the Supply Chain
- Perform Independent Third-Party Audit of Supply Chain Due Diligence
Tesla states in its report that, “Due to its downstream position in our supply chain, any efforts to understand the origin of raw materials rely heavily on the cooperation of our Tier 1 and upstream suppliers. We have uncovered no evidence to date that our suppliers’ sourcing of 3TG materials has contributed to conflict or human rights violations.”
It does, however, list several areas as “covered countries” and states that “Tesla does not directly source from these countries and has no relationship with any companies or individuals located within their national boundaries.” The countries listed are considered “covered” as a part of the U.S. Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rules.
These countries include:
- Burundi
- The Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Rwanda
- Tanzania
- Uganda
- Zambia
Tesla’s primary goal is to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. Although the country is focused on scalability and handling its increasing demand, it is unwilling to cut corners and intends to continue creating its vehicles in an environmentally friendly way throughout the entire supply chain.
The full report is available here.
News
Tesla Robotaxi-only Superchargers are starting to appear
For Tesla, these Robotaxi-only Superchargers represent more than convenient parking spots. They are the first bricks in a vertically integrated autonomy platform—vehicles, energy, and software working in seamless concert.
Tesla is starting to build out Robotaxi-only Superchargers as the company is truly leaning on its Full Self-Driving and autonomy efforts to solve passenger travel.
Last week, the company filed pre-permits in Arizona’s East Valley for two dedicated, non-public charging sites stocked with next-generation V4 Superchargers. The filings mark the first visible evidence of purpose-built infrastructure exclusively for autonomous Tesla vehicles, as they state they are not for public use.
In Chandler, Tesla plans to install 56 V4 stalls on an industrial parcel along South Roosevelt Avenue. Site documents describe a high-capacity setup supported by new SRP transformers, switching cabinets, and upgrades to existing underground lines.
A second site in Mesa, located at 5349 E Main Street in another industrial zone, carries the same private-use designation. Both locations sit well away from public roads and customer traffic, ensuring the chargers serve only Tesla’s internal fleet.
The sites were spotted by Supercharger observer MarcoRP.
On the same day, Tesla also submitted a draft for another proposed location in the city of Mesa, also listed as private use.
This site is located in an industrial area on the east side of the city. pic.twitter.com/jCC1IsKKKw
— MarcoRP (@MarcoRPi1) April 17, 2026
Phoenix’s East Valley offers an ideal launchpad for Robotaxi Supercharging: the location has a clean, grid-like street layout and year-round mild weather that minimizes camera degradation. Additionally, Arizona has welcomed self-driving pilots since Waymo’s early days.
By securing private depots now, Tesla can optimize charging cycles, reduce downtime, and maintain full control over vehicle hygiene and security, critical factors for high-utilization Robotaxi operations.
The type of Supercharger is telling as well, as they are V4, Tesla’s fastest and most efficient buildout.
V4 stalls deliver faster power and support bidirectional charging, features that will let idle Robotaxis feed energy back to the grid during off-peak hours. Because the sites are closed to the public, Tesla avoids congestion, vandalism risks, and the scheduling conflicts that plague shared stations.
The timing is telling. With unsupervised Full Self-Driving hardware already rolling out across the lineup and Cybercab production targets looming, Tesla is shifting from vehicle development to ecosystem readiness.
Charging infrastructure has historically been the gating factor for ride-hailing scale; building it ahead of the vehicles signals confidence that regulatory and technical hurdles are nearing resolution.
Tesla has been spotted testing Cybercab units in Arizona over the past few months, as well.
Interestingly, the permits show V4 Superchargers in the plans, although Cybercab will likely utilize wireless charging:
Tesla Cybercab spotted with interesting charging solution, stimulating discussion
For Tesla, these Robotaxi-only Superchargers represent more than convenient parking spots. They are the first bricks in a vertically integrated autonomy platform—vehicles, energy, and software working in seamless concert.
It appears Tesla is preparing to begin building out Robotaxi-only Superchargers to avoid the congestion and keep its autonomous fleet charged up to get ride-hailers to their destinations.
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.
Tesla Robotaxi-only Superchargers are starting to appear
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
