News
The SEC’s obsession with Elon Musk’s Twitter is still alive and well
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Twitter feed was being questioned by SEC regulators last year, as the agency stated that his social media account had violated a court-ordered policy from a 2018 settlement that would require his Tweets to be pre-approved by company lawyers.
After Musk tweeted that he was interested in taking Tesla stock private at $420 a share in 2018, the SEC alleged that the CEO had committed fraud by communicating a potential buyout of the electric car company. The case was later settled by the SEC, Tesla, and Musk, who was required to pay $20 million in fines. Tesla also was required to pay a penalty of the same amount, and the settlement required Musk’s tweets to be examined and approved before he sent them out. Musk was also required to step down as Tesla’s chairman, a position that he would be ineligible to be re-elected to for three years, the SEC settlement said.
Musk paid the penalties and stepped down as the Chairman of the Board. However, in an interview with 60 Minutes, he admitted that he was not having his tweets regulated by company attorneys and that the First Amendment protected his speech. “Twitter is a warzone,” Musk said. “I do not respect the SEC,” he also said in the interview.
Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 7, 2018
Now, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that it has uncovered several documents from the SEC that indicated that Musk violated the court-ordered pre-approval of his tweets last year. The SEC told Tesla in May 2020 that it had failed “to enforce these procedures and controls despite repeated violations by Mr. Musk.” A former SEC Senior Official named Steven Buchholz signed the letter and stated that Tesla failed to oblige by the settlement that was agreed to.
The WSJ said it obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Musk’s Twitter activity was difficult to regulate. The SEC asked a New York City court to consider holding Musk in contempt of court in February 2019, but the Judge said that the dispute needed to be settled, and the SEC agreed to modify the terms of the settlement. Instead, certain topics would be required for pre-approval and included anything regarding production figures, Tesla’s financials, and potential business ventures. Musk tweeted an update in July 2019 that updated his followers on his expectations for Tesla’s Solar Roof production rate and hoped that the company could manufacture 1,000 units per week by the end of the year.
Spooling up production line rapidly. Hoping to manufacture ~1000 solar roofs/week by end of this year.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 30, 2019
Tesla told the SEC that the tweet didn’t require approval because it was “wholly aspirational,” meaning that it was just a hope of Musk’s and that production wouldn’t necessarily reach that level. It was a goal, not an update.
Musk then tweeted that “Tesla’s stock price is too high imo” in May 2020, another tweet that put the SEC into the realm of questioning Musk’s Twitter usage. According to the WSJ, Tesla once again didn’t review the tweet because it was Musk’s opinion.
Tesla stock price is too high imo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2020
In response to Tesla’s decision not to review the tweet, the SEC wrote (via Wall Street Journal):
“In the face of Mr. Musk’s repeated refusals to submit his covered written communications on Twitter to Tesla for pre-approval, we are very concerned by Tesla’s repeated determinations that there have been no policy violations because of purported carve-outs.”
Tesla’s attorneys said later that month that regulators have attempted to “harass Tesla and silence Mr. Musk” with repeated investigations.
Attorney Alex Spiro was concerned that the SEC was simply targeting Musk. “The serial nature of these investigations leaves us gravely concerned that the SEC is targeting Mr. Musk for an improper purpose,” Spiro wrote.
The SEC requested that Tesla reconsider its positions in the investigations to “prevent further shareholder harm.”
A June 2020 letter from the SEC said:
“We urge the company to reconsider its positions in this matter by acting to implement and enforce disclosure controls and procedures…to prevent further shareholder harm.”
The rivalry between the SEC and Musk continues, it seems, with no real end in sight. Spiro’s claims that the SEC is targeting Musk align with the fact that the agency has repeatedly gone after the Tesla CEO with the basis that he is manipulating stock prices or affecting shareholder integrity. In reality, Musk’s ability to tweet is protected by his First Amendment right, and a shareholder decides to buy or sell a stock, not Musk.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below, or be sure to email me at joey@teslarati.com or on Twitter @KlenderJoey.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
