News
Tesla’s Elon Musk gets cursed-out by CA politician who’s backed by Chevron
Among the adverse reactions to Tesla and Elon Musk’s stance on the ongoing shutdown of the Fremont factory, the most drastic would have to come from CA Assemblywoman Lorena S. Gonzales. The politician opted to give her two cents on the unfolding series of events this past weekend, and they were interesting, to say the least.
Instead of providing a formal statement of support for Tesla like Fremont Mayor Lily Mei, or an argument about why the factory should not reopen yet like former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Gonzales decided to keep her points as succinct as possible. In a tweet, the CA assemblywoman simply posted a message declaring “F*ck Elon Musk.”
Gonzales would later add a couple more points in her initial “F*ck Elon Musk” message. In a series of follow up tweets, Gonzales accused Tesla of being a highly-subsidized company that has “always disregarded worker safety and well-being.” She also claimed that the company has “engaged in union busting” and that it “bullies public servants.”
The CA assemblywoman’s follow-up tweets contain usual talking points against the electric car maker. Accusations about worker safety, for example, mirror those of an alleged expose by Reveal magazine back in 2018, which Tesla has already responded to. Musk has also noted that Fremont employees are free to unionize, though organizations such as the UAW are not particularly popular among the plant’s workers considering the union’s failures during the facility’s days as the NUMMI plant.
Interestingly enough, a look at Gonzales’ page on politician-tracking platform VoteSmart shows that the CA assemblywoman lists Chevron, one of the world’s premier fossil fuel companies, as her third-biggest contributor for the 2020 cycle. A look at Gonzales’ fundings from top industries also reveals that she has received funds from the “Oil and Gas” segment.
There are many ways to express grievances against Musk and Tesla, though it is difficult to deny that Gonzales’ simple profanity-laden statement is a bit unusual for a government official. Off-the-cuff comments may be the trend nowadays with politics spilling over to online platforms, but it is still a bit off to see overtly aggressive posts such as “F*ck Elon Musk” coming from a CA assemblywoman. Such statements are common to the TSLAQ community and outspoken short-sellers, but one would expect an elected official to behave online differently.
Amidst the ongoing shutdown of the Fremont factory, Scott Haggerty, the county supervisor for the district in Alameda County, suggested to the New York Times that things would have been better had Musk not filed a lawsuit against the county. According to Haggerty, Tesla was poised to reopen the Fremont factory on May 18, but Musk wanted the factory to resume operations earlier. With Tesla filing a lawsuit against the county, Haggerty warned that things would likely be delayed further.
“We were working on a lot of policies and procedures to help operate that plant, and quite frankly, I think Tesla did a pretty good job, and that’s why I had it to the point where on May 18, Tesla would have opened. I know Elon knew that. But he wanted it this week.”
“It (the lawsuit) was only a threat, and as an elected official, I get threatened all the time. It does, at that point, slow down conversations between my contact at the plant and myself. He could have spent time enjoying his new baby and given me and my staff a couple more days, and his plant would have been open on May 18. Am I somewhat sympathetic with Tesla? Yes, I am. Am I sympathetic to the way Musk is treating people? No.” Haggerty said.
Other automakers in the United States are not on the same boat as Tesla. General Motors, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler have stated that they will resume operations on May 18. Toyota intends to reopen its US plants on May 11. German automaker Mercedes-Benz has already resumed operations at its SUV plant in Alabama, as well as a van factory in South Carolina.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
