News
Tesla thrown under the bus in dinner conversation with Donald Trump
Tesla has grown much over the years, as evidenced by the domination of the Model 3 in the premium sedan segment and the rise of factories like Giga Shanghai. Yet, at the same time, the level of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) that the company and its supporters have had to deal with have also intensified over the years. Even today, with TSLA stock at record levels, and with the company overtaking Volkswagen as the second largest automaker in the industry by market cap, anti-Tesla FUD is still at an all-time high.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, one must acknowledge a rather inconvenient truth. There is a massive misinformation campaign against Tesla, and it has been going on for years. One simply needs to look at a recently leaked recording of a 2018 White House dinner with US President Donald Trump to see proof of this.
Recently, a 90-minute recording of Trump and several dinner guests was shared with the public by a lawyer for Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman who was reportedly involved in ousting American diplomat Marie Yovanovitch, the US’ ambassador to Ukraine. Several topics were discussed in the recording, one of which was electric vehicles in the United States and Tesla’s chances of survival.
During a particularly alarming part of the recording, which came at around the 58-minute mark, several individuals in the dinner started talking about electric vehicles. The US President asked how electric cars are doing in the market, and his inquiry was immediately met with a prompt “Not good.” A guest of the dinner then went on a long tirade against Tesla, filled with, unsurprisingly, a ton of FUD. Granted, Tesla was in a far more challenging place at the time when the recording was taken, but the sheer dislike for the company is quite shocking nonetheless.
“Tesla’s broke. 100%. They can’t produce them. The auto companies have caught up to him. He’s never generated anywhere close to positive cash flow. He’s subsidized by 25,000 per vehicle. It’s over. The other thing people forget about it it’s great to have an electric vehicle, but you gotta plug it in and get a charge somewhere.
“And, the carbon footprint of this phone is the same as a refrigerator running. You need to generate the power. And generating it with wind and solar, wind and solar only generates 3.5% of our power usage today. You would take 50 years to get up to 5% at the rate we’re growing. It is still fossil k generating power. You have to have nuclear, you have to have oil and gas, and you have to have coal,” the guest said.
This statement, of course, is rife with misinformation. Since the time when the recording was taken, Tesla had only reported negative cash flow two times. The company posted positive cash flow four times. The alleged $25,000 subsidy that Teslas receive is also a complete fabrication, as the electric car maker’s federal credits only topped around $7,500. Of course, the comparison between the carbon footprint of a smartphone being comparable to the footprint of a running fridge is equally false.
The conversation only gets stranger from this point, and even with US President Donald Trump bringing up the topic of Tesla’s stock price, the attendees of the dinner were dismissive of the company. A guest even threw some shade at Elon Musk, stating that the CEO is “a little off socially.”
Fortunately for Tesla, the company appears to have reached a point where its results already speak for itself. Even with the FUD being thrown at Tesla’s efforts in China, for example, the company started MIC Model 3 deliveries before the facility’s construction hit the one-year mark. Despite all the alleged demand problems for the Model 3, the all-electric sedan has also maintained its momentum in regions such as Europe, driving down the point that there is a genuine demand for Tesla’s electric cars.
Watch US President Donald Trump and his dinner guests discuss electric vehicles, Tesla, and Elon Musk in the video below.
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
