News
OPINION: Musk’s distaste for Biden incentives would even EV playing field
Tesla CEO Elon Musk had an idea during an interview last evening with the Wall Street Journal: Get rid of government incentives for everyone, including electric vehicles, gas, and oil subsidies. The idea, while it would eliminate potentially $12,500 from an EV’s price tag (if it’s built in a Union facility in the United States with a U.S.-produced battery, and it’s a Chevrolet Bolt), might be the best way for consumers to choose what vehicle would be best for them, and it might be the most ideal way for political interests to subside from the bigger picture: transitioning away from combustion engine vehicles.
It is no secret that Tesla fans have felt slighted by President Joe Biden and other members of his administration. Despite dominating the U.S. EV market share and, without much evidence to suggest otherwise, being the reason so many car companies are deciding to dive into electrification, Tesla is not a word that has been uttered from the President’s mouth. However, other companies, like Ford, General Motors, and others, who are working to transition to EVs, are getting the attention.
In the big picture of the mission, it is great that car companies are continuing to work toward complete electrification, but is it fair for the EV leader and the real reason these legacy companies have to transition or else be left behind cannot get any positive support from the U.S. Presidential Administration?
Elon Musk thinks President Joe Biden’s EV incentives should be a thing of the past.
All of these points bring up perhaps the biggest and most bold statement Musk has made regarding the EV incentives: Get rid of them.
Despite the attractive EV rebate that could put thousands in a consumer’s pocket, especially with the potential for a “refundable” credit based on language in the Build Back Better plan, Musk says that the incentives should not even exist. “Tesla’s made roughly two-thirds of all the electric cars made in the United States. I’m not sure if most people are aware of that. So Tesla’s made roughly twice as many electric vehicles as everyone else has made. Honestly, I would just can this whole bill. Don’t pass it. That’s my recommendation.”
Perhaps this is the right move, simply because it would take politics out of the entire EV sector. At a point where environmental sustainability needs to be one of the focuses of consumerism moving forward, there is no reason for politics or inside interests to disrupt the outright potential of the sector or any of its participants. Not to mention, the obvious ousting of Tesla, Rivian, and other EV makers by the Biden Administration does not necessarily put some consumer minds in the right space. If Biden and others truly cared about transitioning the automotive industry to EVs, would they ignore the largest contributor to the transition? Likely not.
Eliminating incentives from the EV sector would cancel any political influence a consumer may have to digest before purchasing a car. Instead, let the consumer buy what they want, for the price they can afford, at a time when they can afford it. Incentives would likely push the Bolt to sell more units than ever before, especially considering it offers the largest rebate and the vehicle is available for under $30,000 before incentives anyway. It would be a great move to increase the number of EVs on the road, but it would also be unfair to other carmakers, especially the ones who have put more focus on EVs and are pot-committed to transitioning to EVs.
Musk’s idea to rid the system of incentives may be one of the best yet. If people want an electric vehicle, they are going to buy one. Lack of incentives have never stopped consumers from buying $70,000 pickup trucks, a $100,000 Mercedes-Benz, or a $129,000 Model S Plaid. Many people are going to buy the car they want, regardless of what the government might give back in a tax credit. If one thing is for certain, EV tax credits have been proven to be more of a political interest than a consumer advantage.
-
Musk’s full interview with the Wall Street Journal is available below:
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
