New Report Highlights ‘Hidden Truth' Behind Tesla's Vanished $25K EV
Elon Musk denied Tesla was cancelling its $25k EV before later confirming the news was true—but the automaker's executives are said to have known all along.
Elon Musk's denial of Tesla ending its $25k EV project divided the automaker's executives, report states
Company documents and three people familiar with the matter say that Elon Musk raised significant concerns among some Tesla executives when he denied rumors of the automaker canceling its $25,000 electric vehicle (EV) project after the initiative was known as dead within the organization for weeks. On April 5, 2024, Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter, 'Reuters is lying (again),' after the publication reported Tesla's affordable EV, nicknamed the Model 2, as canceled. Reuters's Model 2 report triggered Tesla stock declines, but those losses didn't extend beyond 6% after Musk's denial on X. Musk reversed course months later during Tesla's Q3 earnings call in October, saying: 'Basically, having a regular $25K model is pointless. It would be silly. It would be completely at odds with what we believe,' according to Road & Track. The new Reuters report claims executives not only knew that Tesla was pivoting from the Model 2 weeks before Musk denied the project's cancellation, but also expected the robotaxi to take its place.
2025 Ford Maverick: 4 reasons to love it, 2 reasons to think twice
Watch More
Tesla badge —
Source: Getty
Some confused executives asked Musk whether he had changed his mind about ending the Model 2 initiative, to which the Tesla CEO is said to have replied that the project was still over. Other Tesla executives grew concerned about how investors and suppliers would react given their expectation of a new, more affordable vehicle, and feared the denial would hurt Tesla's sales since some were delaying purchases in hopes of a $25,000 EV. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might even view the statement as misleading investors about a future project that was part of the company's forecasts. Musk already settled with the SEC in 2018 for $40 million over a social media post, which the SEC claimed misled investors into thinking the billionaire would take Tesla private. Still, Musk's public denial didn't bother all Tesla executives, as some cited the automaker as considering various strategies for low-cost EVs over the years. Autoblog reached out to Tesla for comment but didn't receive a response.
Tesla's new plans for more affordable EVs
Earlier this year, Tesla confirmed its updated approach of using pre-existing model platforms to accelerate the release of new vehicles, including affordable cars, one of which was supposed to be a cheaper version of the Model Y, nicknamed E41, and the other being a stripped-down Model 3. However, the stripped-down Model Y will cost more than the originally planned $25,000 price tag, and Reuters's three sources state its US launch is being delayed with an updated release target of late 2025 or early 2026. Reliable reports haven't yet emerged about a stripped-down Model 3's production timeline and pricing. Late last week, a video was posted of a white Tesla SUV driving around the automaker's Fremont, California factory track with its front and rear covered, possibly indicating E41 trials. Tesla Newswire reposted the footage on X.
White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. —
Source: Getty Images
Final thoughts
Referenced in some of our previous articles on Tesla, Autoblog interviewed viral YouTuber and mechanic Scotty Kilmer, who seemed to sum up Musk's decision to publicly deny the Model 2's cancellation by saying: 'Value to him [Elon Musk] is stock market value. Stock market value isn't real value. It's pumped-up stuff. It used to be that the stock market was an investment. It isn't anymore. It's just outright riverboat gambling. His [Elon Musk] stock can go up billions of dollars or go down billions of dollars with whatever he says.' Since Musk's denial of the Model 2's end stopped a stock slide, it seems the Tesla CEO's public statement prioritized damage control instead of buyer and investor transparency.
About the Author
Cody Carlson View Profile
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS College sports changed forever as judge approves groundbreaking move
Judge Claudia Wilken has approved the settlement in the House v. NCAA case - which now paves a pathway to allow colleges and universities to directly pay their athletes and changes the dynamic of American collegiate athletics forever. A decade ago, college athletes were treated as amateurs and were not directly compensated for their contributions to athletic departments, nor were they able to be paid by outside companies. With the rise of name, image, and likeness agreements in 2021, athletes could sign endorsement deals with companies and collectives of donors could pool money which could be given to athletes. Now, with this landmark settlement, the NCAA's member institutions will be allowed to pay their athletes directly in the form of revenue sharing agreements. The focal point of this case began with Arizona State swimmer Grant House, who sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences at the time - the SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, and Pac-12 - to lift restrictions on revenue sharing. Wilken gave approval to a final proposal after months of negotiating multiple finer points of the deal - including roster limits.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again. ___
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US judge approves landmark $2.8 billion NCAA settlement with athletes
June 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday granted final approval to a $2.8 billion settlement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association that will allow schools for the first time to compensate student athletes for past and future commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. The settlement, approved in a ruling by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in the Oakland, California, federal court, resolves long-running litigation between the NCAA and student athletes.
