Investor's Corner
Elon Musk’s Twitter tirade comes amid SEC probe on Tesla’s Model 3 production ramp
Tesla shares (NASDAQ:TSLA) experienced a steep dive on Friday’s trading, dropping more than 7% amidst reports that U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan has asked Elon Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission to justify the terms of their settlement over the CEO’s “funding secured” lawsuit. Also weighing down Tesla’s stock was Elon Musk’s latest Twitter session, where he seemingly trolled the SEC by dubbing the agency as the “Shortseller Enrichment Commission,” and then doubling down.
Update: Tesla CEO Elon Musk faces contempt claim from SEC over recent tweets
Musk’s latest round of tweets has polarized the Tesla community, as a number of retail investors began directly addressing their concerns to the CEO regarding his behavior and its effects on the price of TSLA stock. While Musk assured the community that they would be fine if they are invested for the long-term, several retail investors nonetheless informed the CEO that they had lost a considerable amount of money due to the apparent market-moving effects of his tweets.
But what’s the point of poking regulators publicly? The greatest problem is sustainable energy as you said, but every distraction erodes goodwill you worked so hard to build.
— Vicente Silveira (@vicentes) October 5, 2018
Just want to that the Shortseller Enrichment Commission is doing incredible work. And the name change is so on point!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 4, 2018
While the reasons behind Elon Musk’s latest Twitter session are still up for question, some details about the CEO’s aggravation over the SEC appear to have been teased by FBN’s Charlie Gasparino. In a segment on Fox Business, Gasparino noted that sources close to Tesla’s legal team and the SEC had informed him that the agency is still investigating Tesla, not because of Elon Musk’s “funding secured” tweet, but over the company’s previous forecasts on the Model 3 production ramp and and the company’s profitability.
“What we reported was from people close to the Tesla legal team and the Elon Musk legal team. What they’re telling us is that the SEC does continue to investigate Tesla. Remember, the “funding secured” thing is out of the way, but there’s an existing investigation that could take a bit longer. It involves Tesla and Elon Musk’s stated production goals for the Model 3 largely, and profitability; if those things match up to reality, and whether there’s a fraud case by saying ‘Hey, we’re gonna reach profitability, for example.’”
“The case focuses again on targets that Musk made and some of the other corporate executives as well, about when the Model 3 was gonna come out, how many were gonna be produced, and profitability. When Tesla was gonna be profitable. Remember, these goals have changed along the way. He’s now saying the third quarter should be profitable. We’ll see if it happens.”
Gasparino noted that the SEC’s investigation into Tesla’s Model 3 production and profitability goals would likely be more challenging for the agency than its “funding secured” lawsuit against the CEO. In order to corner Musk and Tesla, the SEC would have to prove that the company knowingly misled investors about the Model 3 ramp. If Tesla or Elon Musk admits that it has honestly miscalculated the progress of the Model 3 ramp, the SEC would likely have a difficult time proving its case. Gasparino noted that his sources in the SEC had informed him that this other Tesla investigation would likely be a very “tough” venture for the agency.

“This is a much tougher case. While it still exists, it’s still problematic for the company; it’s a much tougher case than the other one. This is something that you literally have to go back, look at his statements, look at potential emails where they might be telling each other ‘Hey, we know this is BS, we’re just throwing it out there.’ That’s what the SEC is looking at. So this is a much tougher case, and that’s why the market looks like it’s coming off its lows on this, because people are saying ‘Maybe they got done with the other case, and that’s about it.’”
“This is where we are right now. We should point out that cases like this take months. They’re tough to prove. Very hard to prove that someone was specifically lying about a production goal. You could say “Listen, I thought we’re gonna produce that many Model 3, I thought we were gonna hit production profitability in the second quarter. I was wrong, I misinterpreted.” That type of honest mistake, even though I think most CEOs know you shouldn’t say that sort of stuff. You try not to get forward-looking statements; you always run into problems. That is a tougher case then ‘funding secured,’ and you don’t have funding secured.
“I think if you’re betting that he might be, from a regulatory standpoint, largely out of the woods. I’m not saying he is. If you’re betting, I’m just saying these are tougher, tougher cases. And I can tell you, my sources inside the SEC are telling me that.”
There is no denying that Elon Musk’s Twitter twitter behavior has resulted in losses for Tesla’s investors once more. By the time markets closed on Friday, Tesla stock had lost the recovery it gained earlier in the week after the release of its impressive Q3 production and delivery numbers, as well as the announcement of Elon Musk and the SEC’s settlement. In this sense, Elon Musk’s decision to poke the agency seems like a miscalculation at best.
That said, if the seasoned journalist’s sources are correct and the SEC is still pursuing Tesla over its Model 3 goals, at a time when production of the electric sedan is hitting its stride and the vehicle is getting warmly received by consumers, then Elon Musk’s aggravation becomes a bit more understandable. Nevertheless, with millions in the Tesla community investing their hard-earned money to support the company, then it seems safe to say that Elon Musk should have known better.
Watch Charlie Gasparino’s segment on Fox Business in the video below.
Elon Musk
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest logo confirms everything about what it’s become
SpaceX officially absorbed xAI under the SpaceXAI brand, completing the largest private merger in history.
SpaceX made its corporate transformation official in May 2026 when Elon Musk posted on X that xAI would cease to exist as a standalone company. “xAI will be dissolved as a separate company, so it will just be SpaceXAI, the AI products from SpaceX,” he wrote.
A new SpaceXAI logo was announced today, visually embedding the xAI letters inside the SpaceX identity, which can be seen as a deliberate design choice that signals the merger is not a partnership but a full absorption and XAi a core function of the same company. The same way Starlink is not a separate brand but a SpaceX product. The announcement closed the loop on a process that began February 2, 2026, when SpaceX acquired xAI in the largest private merger in history, valued at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion.
We are now @SpaceXAI. pic.twitter.com/ema66xDWC9
— SpaceXAI (@SpaceXAI) July 6, 2026
The reason SpaceX bought xAI was stated plainly by Musk at the time of the deal: to build orbital data centers. SpaceX had simultaneously filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites designed to function as AI compute nodes in low Earth orbit, escaping what Musk described as the energy constraints limiting AI development on Earth.
xAI provided the AI software stack, with Grok, the X platform, and the Colossus supercomputer infrastructure in Memphis with over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs, while SpaceX provided the rockets, Starlink, and the capital base to fund it. The two companies needed each other. xAI was burning $2.5 billion in losses on $250 million in revenue. SpaceX was generating an estimated $8 billion in profit on $15 billion in revenue and needed an AI narrative to command the valuation it was targeting for its IPO.
What SpaceX has done, regardless of how the orbital AI vision ultimately plays out, is walk into a public market as something no company has been before: a rocket manufacturer, satellite internet provider, AI software company, social media platform, and supercomputer operator under one ticker. Whether that combination is worth $2 trillion depends entirely on which of those businesses you believe in most.
Investor's Corner
Tesla challenges startups to score a gig inside its most advanced European factory
Tesla is challenging startups to bring their best battery tech directly to Gigafactory Berlin.
Tesla has issued an open challenge to startups across Europe, inviting them to bring their best battery technology directly to the floor of Gigafactory Berlin. The program, called the JUNI x Tesla Battery Cell Giga Challenge, opened applications this month with a deadline of July 24, 2026, and is targeting startups with solutions that can make battery cell manufacturing faster, cheaper, safer, and more scalable at an industrial level.
The timing of the challenge is directly tied to Tesla’s most aggressive European battery investment yet. On May 12, 2026, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig announced a $250 million investment to scale the factory’s annual 4680 cell production capacity from 8 GWh to 18 GWh, more than doubling the previous target set just months earlier in December 2025. Thierig confirmed the expansion on X, saying the investment “will enable 18 GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1,500 new jobs.” Combined with a previously announced battery investment at the Grunheide site now approaches $1.2 billion.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The challenge is looking specifically for startups with proven solutions across five categories: materials, equipment, operations, automation, and artificial intelligence. Applications are screened directly by Tesla’s cell manufacturing team in Grunheide, and the strongest submissions move through technical discussions, a pitch day in front of Tesla stakeholders, and potentially a paid pilot project with the cell team. Tesla is not looking for ideas at concept stage. The program requires applicants to demonstrate working prototypes, test data, or prior pilots before being considered.
The historical context matters here. Elon Musk first announced plans for what he called the world’s largest battery cell production facility alongside the Giga Berlin car factory back in 2020, targeting up to 250 GWh of annual capacity. Those plans were shelved in 2022 when Tesla shifted its battery investment focus to the United States to take advantage of Inflation Reduction Act incentives. The revival of cell production at Giga Berlin, now backed by over $1 billion in committed capital, represents a return to an ambition that was set aside for three years. As Teslarati has reported, the 4680 format is central to Tesla’s long-term cost reduction strategy across vehicles, energy storage, including the Tesla Semi and Cybercab.
By opening the challenge to outside startups, Tesla is acknowledging that reaching 18 GWh at Grunheide will require technology it does not currently have in-house, and it is willing to pay for the right solutions. For a startup in the battery supply chain, a paid pilot with Tesla’s European cell team is as close to a direct commercial path as the industry offers.