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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
