Tesla stock plunges as Musk's feud with Trump over GOP tax bill spooks investors
Shares of Elon Musk's electric vehicle maker are falling sharply Thursday as investors fear his dispute with President Donald Trump could end up hurting the company.
Tesla plunged more than 10% in the afternoon as a disagreement over the U.S. president's budget bill turned nasty. After Musk said that Trump wouldn't haven't gotten elected without his help, Trump implied that he may turn the federal government against his company.
'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on his social messaging service Truth Social. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!'
The drop on Thursday wiped out more than $100 billion from Tesla's market value, partially reversing a big runup in the eight weeks since Musk confirmed that Tesla would testing an autonomous, driverless 'robotaxi' service in Austin, Texas, this month.
Investors fear Trump might not be in such a rush to usher in a future of self-driving cars in the U.S., and that could slam Tesla because so much of its future business depends on that.
'There is a fear that Trump is not going to play Mr. Nice Guy when in come to autonomous,' said Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. 'The whole goal of robotaxis is to have them 20 or 25 cities next year. If you start to heighten the regulatory environment, that could delay that path.' Tesla shares doubled in the weeks after Trump was elected, hitting an all-time high on Dec. 17. They gave back those gains and more during Musk's time as head of a government cost-cutting group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Departure of Tesla's humanoid robot boss caps tough week for Elon Musk, amid bitter fallout with Trump
It's been a difficult week for Tesla. Not long after Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's very-public social media spat led Tesla shares to take their greatest single-day drop ever on Thursday—erasing $152 billion off its market cap—one of Tesla's top engineers confirmed on social media late Friday afternoon that he was leaving the company. Milan Kovac, who oversaw the development of Tesla's 'Optimus' humanoid robot posted on X that he had made 'the most difficult decision of my life' and would be 'moving out of my position,' confirming a Bloomberg report from earlier Friday afternoon that he was departing the company. 'I've been far away from home for too long, and will need to spend more time with family abroad,' he wrote in the post. 'I want to make it clear that this is the only reason, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. My support for [Elon Musk] and the team is ironclad—Tesla team forever.' Musk later replied to the post on X, thanking Kovac for his contributions to the company and saying it had been an 'honor' to work with him. The departure is a meaningful one for Tesla. Musk has repeatedly made public statements staking the future of the company on Tesla's self-driving software and its yet-to-be-released humanoid robot product. Musk has claimed that the Optimus robot, specifically, could generate 'north of $10 trillion in revenue' for Tesla and be its biggest product ever. It's largely his bullishness on these AI-powered initiatives that have contributed to Tesla's soaring stock price, which some analysts have argued is divorced from reality. Kovac's departure raises questions over the future direction of Optimus, and whether Tesla will successfully be able to develop, manufacture, and deliver the humanoid robots. Bloomberg reported that Ashok Elluswamy, who leads Tesla's Autopilot, would be taking over responsibilities for Optimus. Tesla had already been criticized for overselling the capabilities of Optimus after it failed to alert attendees of its 'We, Robot' launch event that humans were apparently remotely controlling the robots. (Kovac had confirmed in a social media post after the event that the robots were human-assisted 'to some extent') The departure of one of Tesla's top engineers adds to what has already been a troubling week for the electric vehicle maker. Tesla's shares tumbled this week as President Trump and Musk took to their respective social media platforms to hurl insults at one another. Trump accused Musk of being frustrated that EV credits for Tesla cars would go away as part of the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk accused the president of irresponsible spending with the proposed legislation. The conversation spiraled into insults and even discussions of cutting SpaceX contracts with NASA as the partnership between the two figures very publicly imploded. Adding to Tesla's woes, Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs issued a note to investors on Thursday forecasting weaker-than-expected sales of Tesla cars in the second quarter. Tesla shares recovered some ground on Friday as Musk said he was open to making amends with Trump, though the stock still finished the week down 14% from January (still, Tesla shares are trading nearly 66% higher than they were this time last year.) In his social media post, Kovac recounted how he had joined Tesla in 2016 as an engineer on its Autopilot team and that he had transitioned to lead the Optimus group in early 2022 when Tesla had 'nothing but a couple Kuka arms arranged upside-down,' referring to the industrial robotic arms that are often used in automated factory systems. Tesla did not respond to an immediate request for comment on Kovac's departure. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
17 minutes ago
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report.
