News
Tesla Power Play: Why running a contested Elon Musk narrative is playing with fire
Award-winning journalist Tim Higgins‘ book, “Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century,” is among the most recent explorations into the fascinating character of Elon Musk. But unlike other works such as the still-definitive biography from writer Ashley Vance, Higgins’ book chronicled Tesla’s story during the Model X and Model 3 ramp (among others), periods that Musk himself admitted were among the most challenging times of his professional life.
Filled with stories from numerous sources and spanning Tesla’s history from its early days to last year’s pandemic, Power Play painted a picture of how an incredibly determined Elon Musk practically willed Tesla into being, and how his ego and pettiness caused the company to pay the price more than once. This was a point that moderate Tesla critics would argue: Tesla is a success today not because of its CEO, but in spite of Elon Musk.
After all, as the book noted in its Prologue, Musk may be a very public figure, but there is still a question surrounding him. “Is Elon Musk an underdog, an antihero, a con man, or some combination of the three?” Higgins noted in the book.
A Strong Story with Strong Denials
A book written about Tesla’s most turbulent years is bound to have some controversial elements. And in Power Play, few excerpts would be as controversial as a supposed call between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Apple CEO Tim Cook in 2016. At the time, Tesla was in dire financial straits as it attempted to produce the Model 3 and master the Model X’s production. According to the book, Tim Cook then had an idea: Perhaps it would be a good idea to buy Tesla. Musk reportedly proved interested, but on one condition: he stays on as CEO.
Cook thought the condition was reasonable. After all, when Apple bought Beats in 2014, it decided to keep the company’s original founders. Musk, however, supposedly clarified his request, stating that he’d have to be the CEO of Apple. Gobsmacked at the request, Cook reportedly gave Musk a solid “F*ck you” before hanging up the phone.
The anecdote was shocking enough, and it prompted quite a lot of coverage from the mainstream media, several of whom argued that the story was believable. This was despite the story being denied by both Musk and Cook. Last year, Musk remarked on Twitter that he did try to arrange a meeting with the Apple CEO during the Model 3’s most painful days, but Cook declined the meeting. Cook, on the other hand, clearly told The New York Times‘ Kara Swisher during an appearance at the Sway podcast that he’d never spoken to the Tesla CEO.
Power Play did mention that Cook denied the anecdote presented in the book, though it did not include Musk’s comments about him and the Apple CEO never speaking with each other. The book mentioned, however, that while the two executives claimed to have never spoken to each other, Musk and Cook have been photographed sitting close together at a meeting held by former US President Donald Trump in 2016.
A Compelling Narrative for a Compelling Character
In a Twitter post, Higgins stated that the tale of Musk and Cook’s phone conversation was a story told inside Tesla, and its details were related by individuals who heard it. That being said, it is still quite interesting to see that the anecdote made it to Power Play despite solid denials from both Cook and Musk. The book was published August 2021, after all, and Cook’s comments in the Sway podcast were published on April 2021. Musk’s statements about never meeting Cook, despite relating to a different time in Tesla’s history, were made even earlier in December 2020.
It should be noted that Power Play is, at its core, a nonfiction book that aims to provide a nonfictional account of some of Tesla’s most challenging times. This is why, at least to some degree, a story denied by both participants like the supposed Musk-Cook conversation seems far too risky. A nonfiction writing coach contacted by Teslarati noted that an author would typically be hard-pressed to find a more reliable source than the actual participants of an event.
That being said, the anecdote does help establish the character of Elon Musk in the book as someone egoistic enough that he would make an obviously unreasonable demand on Tim Cook at a time when Tesla desperately needed Apple’s help. There is no doubt that the image of Tim Cook, who is known for always being soft-spoken and well-mannered, giving Elon Musk a sharp “F*ck you” on the phone definitely makes for a compelling narrative.
Dr. John Cook, founder of Skeptical Science and a specialist on false news, noted in a statement to Teslarati that stories such as the two CEOs’ supposed conversation could easily become an inspiration for conspiracy theories, or at least confirm people’s preconceptions of individuals in power. The Skeptical Science founder noted that when people encounter new information that confirms their own preconceptions, there is simply a high likelihood that they would believe it, even if the anecdote’s turthfulness is contested.
“When you have powerful people involved in misinformation, that’s ground for conspiracy theories. So having people like Elon Musk and Tim Cook — inevitably, people get suspicious of people in positions of power, and that’s a very human and natural bias called intentionality bias. We tend to ascribe motives and intent behind what can even be random events. And that’s especially the case when you have powerful people,” Dr. Cook said.
The Burden of Truth
Nonfiction writers have a huge burden on their shoulders, as the stories they tell serve the purpose of relating a truthful recounting of real-life events. As such, it is pretty common practice for books in the genre not to include stories that don’t have corroborating evidence. Otherwise, a nonfiction author might end up countering the nonfiction values of truth and honesty.
Emma Frances Bloomfield, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Teslarati that the burden of proof ultimately rests on the author in cases like the Musk-Cook phone call. And if an author does decide to push through with a story denied by the people involved, then the anecdote would be best presented as a contested account so that readers could decide for themselves. Power Play did this to a point for Cook’s side with its note about the Apple CEO’s denial, but the book did not mention Musk’s comments on Twitter at all.
“If a story is presented as being truthful and accurate (such as in a nonfiction book), the storyteller has a burden of proof to verify the story or provide evidence of its truthfulness, which is hard to do when the people the story is about are denying it. If the author has some external reason to believe it still happened, then it could certainly be told, but with the caveat that the people in question dispute it.
“We don’t, of course, want to promote falsehoods and inaccuracies, so making it clear how much evidence there is for certain occurrences is crucial. Because this book is under ‘nonfiction’ as opposed to historical fiction, I would expect that there is a minimum truth quality to all of the work therein. In other words, the author must have a compelling reason to believe the conversation took place even though Musk and Cook dispute it,” she wrote.
Playing with Fire
There is some irony in the idea that by publishing the contested story of Musk and Cook’s supposed conversation, Higgins ended up playing with fire himself, much like the character depicting the Tesla CEO in Power Play. Pushing through with a contested narrative carries some risk, and not just in terms of social media clout. In a message to Teslarati, Jonathan Crafts, a partner at Fields & Dennis LLP, Wellesley, MA, stated that both the author and publisher of Power Play might be at risk of legal trouble, at least if either Musk or Cook seeks an injunction against them.
Intellectual Property Litigation Law partner Craig R. Smith of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, Boston, MA, added more insights to the potential risks involved when an author runs with a contested story. Smith noted in a message to Teslarati that overall, authors and publishers of nonfiction are at an increased risk of being sued for defamation due to the nature of their work. “In this situation, either Musk or Cook could allege that the statements made in the book are false and that the false statements harmed his reputation,” Smith said.
Every book has a narrative, regardless of whether it is fiction or nonfiction. Books such as Power Play are character-driven since it focuses on people’s struggles as they attempt what could very well be described as the impossible at the time. And central to the book’s narrative is the polarizing figure of Elon Musk, whose persona both online and offline could be the perfect bait for misinformation and conspiracy theories. And while tales with little truth are definitely questionable, Dr. Cook noted that it is easy to see why people tend to gravitate towards them.
“Conspiracy theories can be compelling because they’re simple stories with compelling characters. A conspiracy theory doesn’t even have to have a relation to the truth at all. But if it’s a simple story with villains, with nefarious intent — that grabs people’s imaginations — and simple stories like that are easier to process and understand than more complicated truths,” Dr. John Cook remarked.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with account tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
