Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla’s defense of workers’ safety triggers fiery Twitter rebuttal from Reveal

Published

on

Tesla’s blog post calling out Reveal of intentionally painting a false picture of the company’s safety policies has triggered a fiery Twitter response from the publication on Tuesday. In an extensive article, Reveal alleged that the electric car maker is neglecting workers safety and intentionally mislabeling some of its employees’ injuries to make its facilities appear safer.

Citing former employees of the company and an executive from Worksafe, an organization that has clashed with Tesla in the past, Reveal‘s article suggested that the Elon Musk-led company is operating its facilities in a dangerous, haphazard fashion. According to the publication, much of the dangers that workers face could be blamed on management, especially CEO Elon Musk. The report claimed, for example, that Musk and Tesla’s management allowed the factory floor to have very little hazard markings for dangerous areas because “Elon does not like the color yellow.”

The Reveal article prompted a response from Tesla, which denied the allegations in the report. The Elon Musk-led company went a step further as well, stating that the piece was an “ideologically motivated attack by an extremist organization working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign against Tesla.”

Reveal did not take Tesla’s defense lying down. In a series of tweets on Tuesday, the publication reaffirmed the accuracy of its report. The two reporters who wrote the article have also announced that they will be doing a Reddit AMA to answer questions about their investigation into the electric car maker. Reveal’s tweetstorm could be accessed here, though we have compiled them for easier reading below.

So before yesterday’s investigation came out, Tesla released a statement accusing us of being an “extremist organization” who’s “working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign.” A LOT to unpack right there. So let’s do it.

First of all, there’s zero “disinformation” in this story. The story is based on internal company documents, interviews with five former members of the Tesla safety team and dozens of other current and former employees as well as medical records of injured workers, OSHA records, 911 calls and Tesla’s own injury logs.

Advertisement
-

That information shows Tesla failed to report some of its serious injuries on legally mandated reports. This makes the company’s injury numbers look better than they actually are.

Case in point: Tarik Logan.

On to this accusation of “working directly with union supporters”: Our story was done completely independent of any unionization efforts. Some of the workers we talked to supported the union, but many had no involvement – including Tesla’s own former safety experts.

On to those emails: Here’s one from Justine White, the factory’s safety lead, to Elon Musk’s chief of staff on 12/21/16. “I know what can keep a person up at night regarding safety,” she wrote. “I must tell you that I can’t sleep here at Tesla.”

Advertisement
-

When White resigned, she warned that Musk’s preferences for the color yellow, and other aesthetic tastes, were creating an unsafe workplace. The reporters didn’t rely on just one source for these claims. They spoke with five former safety team members, and they all told the same fundamental concerns.

In its statement, Tesla complained about us visiting employees at their homes unannounced. We didn’t do that, though we do have to do it for some stories. They also complained about us getting in touch with employees on social media. That’s what fair reporters do. They go try to talk to as many people as possible to understand the true story. 

Tesla is yet to respond to Reveal’s fiery response.

Back in February, Tesla VP for Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Laurie Shelby published a blog post outlining the company’s target of becoming the safest car factory in the world. Shelby noted that workers safety in an automotive production line usually comes down to a combination of common sense, a culture that values safety, the rollout of proactive preventive measures, and a management that listens to its employees. According to the 25-year veteran in the EHS field, Tesla already exhibited many of these attributes even before she joined the company in October 2017.

Advertisement
-

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car

Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s new Roadster, upside down and trailing cold gas thruster smoke, flips over a lineup of Tesla vehicles at the Roadster unveiling near Waco, Texas on October 15, 2026. (Image: Tesla)
Tesla’s new Roadster, upside down and trailing cold gas thruster smoke, flips over a lineup of Tesla vehicles at the Roadster unveiling near Waco, Texas on October 15, 2026. (Image: Tesla)

The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.

The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.

The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.


Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.

The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.”

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.”

Advertisement
-

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.

SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading