Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president?
It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump.
The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote.
The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.'
At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages?
'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.'
The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company.
'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?''
It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk.
There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company.
Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company.
The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson.
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.'
To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act.
But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.'
Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own.
But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.''
There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do.
'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said.
It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson.
'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Deletes Tweet Linking Trump to ‘Epstein Files'
Former 'First Buddy' Elon Musk has deleted a spate of explosive tweets in which he claimed President Donald Trump 'is in the Epstein files.' He added in the since-scrubbed June 5 tweet, 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' He then promised, 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' The dramatic claim came amid Musk's nearly three-day blitzkrieg attack against Trump, urging Congress to 'kill' the MAGA head's 'big beautiful bill,' ripping it as 'ugly and 'pork-filled,' and suggesting Trump should be impeached again for his plan to add an estimated $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit through the megabill. Yet Musk appears to have reset and climbed out of his 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' as the president labeled it, amid MAGA's calls for the billionaire to make amends with the Republican president. Investor and former DOGE architect James Fishback—who told Politico that he left the so-called department amid the Trump-Musk feud—tweeted Friday that Musk owed Trump a 'full-throated apology.' He added, 'And every hour you delay, it'll make an eventual apology less sincere.' Amid disagreements on policy between the Trump and Musk, Fishback said Musk 'should not have baselessly and personally attacked him.' Musk used Fishback's tweet as an opportunity to share his side, writing in successive comments under the post: 'What's the apology for exactly.' He added, 'Be precise,' declaring, 'I will apologize profusely as soon as there is a full dump of the Epstein files.' Musk's comments under the post have also since been deleted. Keeping the pressure on Musk, Fishback followed up by sharing his Friday appearance on CNN with two specific directives on why the Tesla CEO should apologize to Trump. 'First, randomly calling for the impeachment of the duly elected President of the United States over a policy disagreement,' Fishback wrote. 'Second, and it just pains me to bring this up, is the slanderous accusation that somehow the President of the United States was a co-conspirator in a multi-decade sex trafficking ring of minors.' Attempting to play peacekeeper, Fishback added that it was 'not okay' for Musk to drag Trump 'in the mud' with 'scumbag' Epstein. 'As Americans, we are allowed to disagree on the substance of the issue—but ad hominem attacks have no place in the public square,' Fishback wrote. Another commentator added, 'The Epstein comment went too far, whether it is true or not.' However, other commentators weren't convinced Musk owed Trump anything at all. 'He owes Trump exactly nothing,' commented X user John Roush under Fishback's post. 'He made the mistake of believing Trump's talk about reigning in spending, agreed to try and help, ended up becoming one of the most reviled men in America, and then found out that Trump doesn't give a damn about spending & was just using him as an election prop.' Rumors have swirled that White House aides have set up a deescalation call between Trump and Musk. Despite this, BBC News reported that the president is 'not interested' in making up with Musk.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois congresswoman says Sikh man praying on House floor was ‘deeply troubling'
The Brief U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (R-Illinois) said in a since-deleted post on X that a Sikh chaplain leading a prayer in Congress was "deeply troubling." She initially misidentified the man as Muslim, according to multiple reports. Miller's comments have received backlash from several fellow members of Congress. WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Republican congresswoman representing parts of downstate Illinois is getting heat for saying in a since-deleted social media post on Friday that it was "deeply troubling" to her that a Sikh man led a prayer in the House of Representatives, after misidentifying the man as Muslim. What we know According to multiple reports, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller wrote on X: "It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should have never been allowed to happen. "America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!" Miller then edited the post to reflect that the man was actually Sikh, but later deleted it entirely. Still, Miller's post garnered criticism from multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat who represents parts of Chicago's northwest suburbs and is running for a U.S. Senate seat. He called Miller's comments anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim. "I am appalled by Rep. Mary Miller's comments—first misidentifying a Sikh chaplain as Muslim, then saying he should have 'never been allowed' to lead the House in prayer. Her remarks were both anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim, and they reflect a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance," Krishnamoorthi said. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for all. The Sikh and Muslim communities have long contributed to the strength, service, and spirit of our nation. All Americans—regardless of party—must come together to reject these attacks and stand united against all forms of prejudice." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), the minority leader in the House, also reacted to Miller's comments saying, "It's deeply troubling that such an ignorant and hateful extremist is serving in the United States Congress. That would be you, Mary." The Congressional Asian Pacific Americans Caucus, which includes Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) and Krishnamoorthi, said on X that it condemned Miller's anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry." "Sikhs and Muslims practice two separate and distinct religions, and conflating the two based on how someone looks is not only ignorant but also racist," the CAPAC added in its post. A request for comment to Miller's campaign was not immediately responded to on Saturday. The backstory It's not the first time Miller has drawn ire for controversial comments during her tenure in Congress. Just a few days into her first term in 2021, Miller apologized for knowingly quoting Adolf Hitler during a rally outside of the U.S. Capitol. While discussing the need for the Republican Party to appeal to young people, she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, 'Whoever has the youth has the future.'" She made that comment on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. Miller apologized for the comment and said some were trying to "twist" her words to "mean something antithetical to my beliefs." She added she was "passionately" pro-Israel and "will always be a strong advocate and ally of the Jewish community." In 2022, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, Miller said at a rally the decision was a "victory for white life." A spokesman said Miller meant to say the decision was a victory for a "right to life," and that her comment was a "mix-up of words."
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Whoopi Goldberg claims people keep telling her 'you can't elect a Black man' in America
"The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg claimed on Thursday that people aren't taking Maryland Gov. Wes Moore's presidential bid seriously because "you can't elect a Black man in America." Goldberg said that she is now questioning the Democratic Party because people are telling her that Americans aren't ready to elect a Black man to the presidency, despite the fact that former President Barack Obama was voted into the Oval Office twice. "I question the Republican Party, and I question the Democratic Party now," she said. "You know, you have someone like Wes Moore who is a perfect candidate… And people are saying, well, he, you know, you can't elect a black man. Why not?" 'The View' Co-host Slams 'Blind Loyalty' To Parties After Karine Jean-pierre Leaves Democrats The other co-hosts immediately pushed back on Goldberg's assertion, with Sunny Hostin noting, "We did it, twice!" Alluding to the fact that Obama — a Black man — had won the national election two times. Goldberg attempted to explain her reasoning, but was quickly cut off by the other co-hosts who expressed enthusiasm over the prospect of Moore serving as president. Read On The Fox News App Shortly thereafter, Goldberg explained to the audience what she believes is necessary for "change to happen." Click Here For The Latest Media And Culture News "If we want change to happen, we're going to have to make it happen, because you're going to have to get out and vote," she asserted. "There's no way around it, you know?" Earlier on in the show, Goldberg claimed that while she's not an independent, she's also not a Republican or Democrat either. "There's no name for what I am," she claimed, drawing laughter from the audience. "There's no name. Because there are some things that fit what I want and some things that don't. And I am the crazy person who said, 'Why don't we have a Democratic president and a Republican vice president?'"Original article source: Whoopi Goldberg claims people keep telling her 'you can't elect a Black man' in America