Tesla has removed wording about having a “majority-minority” workforce in its latest 10-K filing, following recent statements from CEO Elon Musk opposing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives—and a history of allegations of racial discrimination at the automaker’s factories.
In Tesla’s 10-K filing released on Monday, the automaker has changed some of the wording alluding to DEI measures at the company, instead adding a few new paragraphs at the end. The omitted wording from the prior year’s annual report, which can be found near the end of the Item 1, Business section of Tesla’s 10-K filing last year, reads as follows:
“With a majority-minority workforce, empowering our employee resource groups to take charge in driving initiatives that attract, develop and retain our passionate workforce is vital to our continued success.”
Both this and last year’s filings include the same opening line for the section:
“At Tesla, our employees show up passionate about making a difference in the world and for each other.”
However, instead of the “minority-majority” workforce phrasing included in last year’s filing, the 10-K filed this week includes the following language:
“We remain unwavering in our demand that our factories, offices, stores and service centers are places where our employees feel respected and appreciated. Our policies are designed to promote fairness and respect for everyone. We hire, evaluate and promote employees based on their skills and performance. Everyone is expected to be trustworthy, demonstrate excellence in their performance and collaborate with others. With this in mind, we will not tolerate certain behaviors. These include harassment, retaliation, violence, intimidation and discrimination of any kind on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability or veteran status.”
The filing goes on to mention Tesla’s anti-harassment training and leadership development programs, encouraging employees to speak up about misconduct by contacting the company integrity line, human resources, and managers, or by submitting concerns through the Take Charge process.
You can see Tesla’s full 10-K filing for the fiscal year 2023 here, along with its 10-K released a year ago for the fiscal year 2022 here. Although the “majority-minority” workplace phrasing has been removed from the 10-K filing, Tesla still says this on its website, adding that underrepresented groups represent 67 percent of the company’s U.S. workforce.
Musk and Tesla have also continually emphasized their opposition to racism in the workplace in response to allegations of discrimination over the years. Musk has instead recently made several statements on X calling DEI initiatives racist, even noting in December that he thinks “DEI must DIE.”
“The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination,” Musk added.
“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.
This is just as morally wrong as any other racism and sexism. Changing the target class doesn’t make it right!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 16, 2023
Earlier this month, Musk reiterated his opposition to these programs, saying that “DEI is just another word for racism.”
Discrimination on the basis of race, which DEI does, is literally the definition of racism
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 3, 2024
Musk has also opposed what he terms the “woke mind virus,” which he has criticized several times over the past few years.
Yeah, we have a lot to fix. The Internet is infested with the woke mind virus.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 11, 2024
Tesla has also faced multiple court cases alleging racial discrimination in the past, each of which the company and Musk have denied.
One such case included the high-profile trial of former contracted elevator operator Owen Diaz, who was denied his appeal by a judge in October for a third re-trial after being awarded $137 million by a jury in 2021. Diaz had worked at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, in 2015, and a second jury last April awarded him a $3.2 million verdict after he rejected a lowered settlement of $15 million from the first trial.
In a lawsuit in California in 2022, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) accused Tesla of operating a “racially segregated” workplace at the Fremont factory, to which the automaker responded by denying the claims and filing a formal complaint against the agency.
Earlier this month, Musk paid a visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp, and to a symposium opposing the rise of anti-semitism organized by the European Jewish Association (EJA), after X faced advertising boycotts and heavy criticism when Musk liked and replied to an anti-semitic post in November.
“I’m sorry for that post. It was foolish of me,” Musk said in an interview following the incident. “Of my 30,000 posts, it might literally be the worst and dumbest post I’ve ever done. I think over time it’ll be obvious that I’m far from anti-semitic.”
Tesla accused of race-based discrimination, retaliation by former HR manager
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
