News
Over 1,700 Tesla investors are responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call for Musk investigation
Over 1,700 Tesla shareholders are responding to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently wrote a letter to Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm asking the EV maker’s Board of Directors to investigate CEO Elon Musk’s alleged conflicts of interest. As per the Tesla shareholders, the US Senator’s efforts are better directed towards matters that directly relate to her home state.
US Senator Warren’s letter to the Tesla Board of Directors was made public last week. The official outlined several concerns in her letter, such as Musk’s alleged diversion of Tesla’s resources to xAI, his alleged conflicts of interest, and the alleged neglect of corporate governance duties from the Tesla Board of Directors. Warren also argued that Tesla shareholders have “suffered” from a lack of oversight at the EV maker.
In their response, the TSLA shareholders noted that they are concerned about the US official’s focus on Tesla, especially since the EV maker is not domiciled in Massachusetts. The stockholders, who number over 1,700 as of a recent update, also addressed some of the US Senator’s concerns in her letter.
? Sen Warren
Only 24h and already 1,742 signers of the letter to Senator Warren. You are amazing.
If someone from MA knows a journalist there, let me know.
To sign:
-> https://t.co/vjJS5w26sg or
-> https://t.co/eWCX59xzJF
Will print out on Wednesday and mail to her. https://t.co/8Y5Ate91nG— Ale?andra Merz ?? (@TeslaBoomerMama) August 11, 2024
Following is the Tesla stockholders’ letter to US Senator Warren.
Dear Senator Warren,
We, the undersigned Tesla shareholders, are writing in response to your letter dated August 8, 2024, addressed to Dr. Robyn Denholm, Chair of the Board of Tesla. We must express our deep concern and disappointment regarding your unwarranted interference in Tesla’s affairs.
First and foremost, we question the basis of your involvement in this matter. Tesla is not domiciled in your state, and to our knowledge, you are not a shareholder. Your attempt to exert influence over a company in which you have no direct stake is, frankly, perplexing and concerning.
We cannot help but view your actions as politically motivated, particularly given the timing of your letter during a Presidential election period. This appears to be an attempt to generate political pressure rather than a genuine effort to address shareholder concerns.
Your letter conspicuously fails to acknowledge Tesla’s significant contributions to the American economy, the global shift to EVs and to a sustainable future. As the most American car maker, Tesla has created tens of thousands of jobs across the country. Moreover, Elon Musk’s other ventures have further bolstered American innovation and employment. Your silence on these crucial points is telling.
Addressing Your Specific Points:
1. Diversion of Al Resources: The allocation of resources across Musk’s companies often leads to synergies that benefit Testa. This is a matter for the Board and shareholders to address, not external politicians.
2. Founding of xAI: The potential for collaboration between XAl and Tesla could drive innovation in ways that ultimately benefit our company and shareholders.
3. Conflicts of Interest: The Board is well aware of its fiduciary duties and is capable of managing potential conflicts without external political pressure.
4. Board’s Oversight: We have confidence in our Board’s ability to provide appropriate oversight. Your assertions of failure are both premature and presumptuous.
5. Shareholder Concerns: While some concerns exist, many shareholders continue to support Mr. Musk’s vision and leadership. We prefer to address these matters internally, without political interference.
6. Your Questions: While your questions are noted, we believe they should be addressed to the Board by legitimate stakeholders, not by politicians seeking to make headlines.
Senator Warren, while we respect your role as a public servant, we strongly believe your energies would be better directed towards matters that fall within your purview as a Senator from Massachusetts.
Testa’s corporate governance is a matter for its Board, its shareholders, and the appropriate regulatory bodies.
We kindly request that you refrain from further interference in Tesla’s affairs. Instead, we suggest focusing on creating an environment that fosters innovation and job creation – areas where Tesla and Elon Musk’s other ventures have demonstrably excelled.
We stand firmly behind Testa’s mission and leadership, and we will continue to work constructively with the Board to ensure the company’s ongoing success and adherence to proper governance standards.
Sincerely,
Tesla Shareholders
This is not the first time that Tesla or Musk has found itself in the crosshairs of the US Senator. Back in December 2021, Warren called for changes in the US tax code so that Elon Musk would stop “freeloading off everyone else.” In December 2022, Warren sent a letter to Tesla’s Board of Directors asking them if Elon Musk has been diverting the EV maker’s resources to Twitter. In July 2023, Warren also sent a letter encouraging the SEC to investigate Tesla and its Board of Directors, citing potential “conflicts of interest, misappropriation of corporate assets, and other negative impacts to Tesla shareholders” related to Elon Musk’s acquisition of social media platform Twitter.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
News
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.