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
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.