Investor's Corner
Tesla isn’t “losing” all of its executives — it just has a ton
Over the past week, you’ve probably heard reports of Tesla “losing” executives, and while the reports are correct, the narrative is wrong. As Musk pushes the Model 3 production ramp forward, he’s also aiming to bring the company to profitability in the second half of the year. Shedding unnecessary positions on the executive level certainly seems to be part of this plan.
But with reports of “executives” leaving Tesla surfacing what feels like, everyday, it seems like the company is spiraling out of control. This is fundamentally incorrect because the media is highlighting any “senior” departure as a major loss and isn’t providing context to Tesla’s broader management structure.
First, reports of “key” people leaving Tesla now range from Vice Presidents, Product Directors, Managers, and Directors. But how are we determining people to be key? Bloomberg’s Dana Hull reported that Bob Rudd and Arch Padmanabhan left the company. Rudd and Padmanabhan’s positions were Senior Director and Director respectively. Padmanabhan had been at Tesla for 5 years, while Rudd joined SolarCity in 2012 at VP of Project Development for Energy Storage & Microgrids.
It’s unclear why Rudd and Padmanabhan have left the company, but it could be part of Musk’s broader company reorganization. On Monday, Musk sent out a memo to employees telling them, “To ensure that Tesla is well prepared for the future, we have been undertaking a thorough reorganization of our company.”
In addition to the company’s overall structure, Musk is aiming to rid a significant number of contract workers at the company. During Tesla’s Q1 2018 earnings call, Musk referred to contractors as “barnacles” stating that, “…we’re going to scrub the barnacles on that front.”
“It’s pretty crazy. We’ve got barnacles on barnacles. So there’s going to be a lot of barnacle removal.”
I could list dozens of executive departures at Tesla that were not previously reported in the past year, all senior to both Rudd and Padmanabhan, but I think it’s more important to provide perspective on the number of executives Tesla actually employs. After an in-depth analysis of LinkedIn data, I have found 23 active Vice Presidents at Tesla. There were far too many Directors and Senior Directors to conduct an accurate analysis.
Since the beginning of 2017, Tesla has lost 9 VPs and 3 other major executives (CAO, CFO, and President). Of the executives that left, their average tenure was 3.9 years — nearly a third less than existing VPs. Comparably, the VPs that are currently employed by Tesla hold an average tenure of 4.8 years.
Of the executives that have left since the start of 2017, only 4 had stayed at the company longer than 3 years, suggesting that their departures could have been related to culture clash (Chris Lattner) or a stepping stone to a C-Suite position at another company (Jon McNeill, Diarmuid O’Connell).
While it isn’t clear how exactly Tesla will be “restructured,” you can be certain that nearly all departures will be “high profile” as investors watch closely.
Full list of executives included in this analysis:
Active (23):
- VP, Legal: Jonathan Chang
- VP, Manufacturing: Gilbert Passin
- VP, Materials Engineering: Charles Kuehmann
- VP, Sales: John Walker
- VP, Communications: Sarah O’Brien
- VP, Gigafactory Operations and EPC: Kevin Kassekert
- VP, Treasurer: Ron Klein
- VP, Automation, Equipment and MES Engineering: Pablo Gonzalez
- VP, Global Supply Chain: Sascha Zahnd
- VP, Worldwide Service and Customer Experience: Karim Bousta
- VP, Technology: Drew Baglino
- VP, Legal: Phil Rothenberg
- VP, Engineering: Steve MacManus
- VP of Engineering: Nick Kalayjian
- VP of Engineering: Dr. Michael Schwekutsch
- VP, Technology and Engineering: Nagesh Saldi
- VP, Asia Pacific: Robin Ren
- VP, US Energy Sales: Bryan Ellis
- VP, Global Recruiting: Cindy Nicola
- VP, Environment, Health, and Wellness: Laurie Shelby
- VP, Worldwide Finance and Operations: Justin McAnear
- VP: Ganesh Srivats
- VP, Production: Peter Hochholdinger
- VP, Gigafactory 1: Jens Peter Clausen
- VP, Trucks and Programs: Jerome Guillen
- VP, Powertrain Hardware Engineering: Jim Dunlay
- VP, Global Supply Management at Tesla Motors: Liam O’Connor
- VP of Vehicle Software, Services, and Diagnostics: David Lau
- VP of Energy Sales and Operations: Cal Lankton
- VP, Product Marketing: Elliott Summers
Executive Departures from 2017-current (8 VPs, 3 other Major Execs) :
- VP, Finance and Corporate Treasurer: Susan Repo
- VP, Investor Relations: Jeff Evanson
- VP, Talent Acquisition & Analytics: Raj Dev
- President, Global Sales, Marketing, Delivery, and Service: Jon McNeill
- VP, Autopilot Hardware Engineering: Jim Keller
- CFO, Jason Wheeler
- CAO, Eric Branderiz
- VP, Autopilot: Chris Lattner
- VP, HR: Arnnon Geshuri
- VP, HR: Mark Lipscomb
- VP, Autopilot Vision David Nister
Disclaimer: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Teslarati and its owners. Christian Prenzler does not have a position in Tesla Inc. or any of its competitors and does not have plans to do so in the next 30 days.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
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.