Tesla boss Elon Musk has made plenty of wildly ambitious – and frequently inaccurate – claims about Tesla’s upcoming fleet of robotaxis. But now, after years of eyebrow-raising promises, the first of them is actually set to hit public roads next month. As part of a pilot program in Austin, Texas, Tesla will finally launch its long-hyped robotaxi service in a bid to close the wide lead Waymo currently holds in the autonomous vehicle race.

In 2019, Musk infamously claimed that by the end of that year, Tesla would have 1 million robotaxis on US roads. It does not currently have a single one, but next month, it will deploy approximately 10 robotaxis in Austin, and, if all goes well, could dramatically expand this to thousands of vehicles. Importantly, these will not be Tesla’s Cybercab, but rather versions of its current models equipped with the new Unsupervised Full-Self Driving system.

Read: Waymo’s Driverless Cars Kept Hitting Objects You See But They Don’t

During a recent interview with CNBC, Musk said it will be prudent for the company to be cautious in its roll-out of the system and that Tesla employees will monitor the fleet of robotaxis remotely.

“It’s prudent for us to start with a small number, confirm that things are going well and then scale it up,” Musk said. “We’ll be watching what the cars are doing very carefully and as confidence grows, less of that will be needed.”

To help ensure the roll-out of the robotaxi fleet is as smooth as possible, vehicles will be geofenced to certain areas of Austin. As the robotaxi fleet expands, Musk predicted that by the end of 2026, Tesla will have “hundreds of thousands, if not over a million Teslas doing self-driving in the US.” Like with all predictions from the world’s richest man, we’ll have to wait and see if this becomes a reality.

Buying Uber?

During the same interview, Musk was asked why Tesla doesn’t buy Uber. Musk sees no need to make such a move, noting the brand already has a large fleet of vehicles and everything it needs to run a successful robotaxi service. This will include the ability for private Tesla owners to add their vehicles to the fleet, meaning they can be used as robotaxis whenever the owner doesn’t need their car.

“We have millions of cars that will be able to operate autonomously,” Musk said. “And I should say that it’s a combination of a Tesla-owned fleet and also enabling Tesla owners to be able to add or subtract their car to the fleet, so that existing Tesla owners will be able to earn money by adding their car to the fleet for autonomous use.”

Elon Musk seems to have no plans of stepping down from Tesla anytime soon, despite the growing grumbles from shareholders who aren’t thrilled about his other ventures, especially when meddling in global politics. To solidify his grip on the company, he’s also eyeing a bigger slice of Tesla’s pie, aiming to raise his stake to around 25%, just to make sure no investors can force him out.

While speaking over video during the Qatar Economic Forum in Doha this week, Musk said he has “no doubt” he will remain CEO for at least the next five years, unless he dies in that time. A little grim, but we get the point.

Read: Elon Musk’s Latest Investor Power Play Just Made Suing Tesla Nearly Impossible

This news may upset some who were concerned Musk was getting distracted and was no longer fully committed to Tesla, but there’s no denying the fact Musk has led Tesla through a rapid expansion that transformed them from a fringe player into one of the world’s largest car manufacturers by volume, and the single most valuable by market cap.

It was recently reported that Tesla board members started to reach out to executive search firms to see if they could find a new CEO. It’s understood that board members had grown concerned Musk was spending too much time in Washington alongside President Trump. However, both Tesla and Musk later denied these assertions.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Musk isn’t going anywhere. He currently owns a 12.77% stake in Tesla that currently is worth more than $140 billion, but during a separate interview this week, he said he’d like to increase this to around 25%. He believes this will give him enough control to ensure he cannot be ousted by activist investors.

“It’s not a money thing,” Musk said. “It’s a reasonable control thing over the future of the company. That’s the number I’d feel comfortable at, because that’s where I have some control, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out, [unless] I’m destroying the value of the company or if I’ve just gone flat-out crazy.”

It seems as though some of the blowback for his involvement in US politics has also gotten to Musk. He spent almost $300 million last year to help President Trump return to the Oval Office, but has confirmed he will “do a lot less” political spending in the future. “If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it,” he added, but said, “I do not currently see a reason.”

It wasn’t a major Tesla shareholder who took down Elon Musk’s record-breaking $56 billion pay package in court, but rather a guy with just nine Tesla shares. But, of course, Tesla isn’t keen on letting that happen again. So, earlier this month, the company quietly tweaked its corporate bylaws, making it harder for shareholders to sue the board or executives over suspected breaches of fiduciary duty.

Read: Musk Appeals For $56 Billion Tesla Payday, As Firing Thousands Just Doesn’t Pay Enough

Tesla’s latest filing reveals that to sue the EV company, an investor now has to hold at least 3% of Tesla’s outstanding shares. Given the automaker’s current market value, that means you’d need around 97 million shares worth more than $34 billion to even think about taking legal action. Good luck with that.

The Texas Twist

Why the change? Well, Tesla has been able to implement this thanks to its recent move to Texas, a state with laws that are a bit friendlier to corporations than Delaware, where Tesla was originally incorporated. Richard Tornetta, the shareholder who first sued over Musk’s compensation, filed the case when Tesla was still a Delaware company. But last year, Tesla made the leap to Texas after receiving shareholder approval, making it easier to adopt these new, lawsuit-limiting bylaws.

Speaking with CNBC, corporate and securities law trial attorney Ann Lipton said Tesla is making the most of more favorable laws in Texas that allow companies to limit shareholder lawsuits for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. While the change will likely go unnoticed by the majority of Tesla shareholders, it does severely limit their ability to take Tesla to court for wrongdoings.

Musk’s Pay Saga

Elon Musk continues efforts to have his compensation package reinstated. In 2018, the world’s richest man decided against taking a salary at Tesla and struck a deal to buy 303 million Tesla shares at $23 apiece if the company met certain performance and valuation targets. It reached all of these targets, but in January 2024, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick annulled the pay plan. According to her, the Tesla board members who approved it were essentially beholden to Musk.

Tesla shareholders were then asked to vote on the pay package again, and they approved it a second time. But the judge wasn’t having it and blocked the deal yet again. It’s a pay plan that just won’t die, and it seems like neither will Musk’s determination to get it reinstated.

In the wake of the US-China trade war, Tesla temporarily halted shipments of parts from China to the US. However, with both countries now agreeing to a 90-day truce and significantly reducing their respective tariffs, Tesla is looking to resume the import of critical components from China. Elon Musk may want to keep this news under wraps from President Trump, though, as his stance on tariffs is far from favorable.

Read: Tesla’s CyberCab Promises 300-Mile Range with Surprisingly Small Battery

An unnamed inside source told Reuters that Tesla will start shipping Cybercab and Semi parts from China at the end of this month. The electric automaker will reportedly start trial production of the Cybercab in October before moving ahead with mass production in 2026. Tesla has grandiose ambitions for the Cybercab and is betting on hundreds of thousands of units being sold in the US, forming the core of its long-awaited robotaxi service.

As the electric car maker gears up for production, many details about the Cybercab remain under wraps. What is known, however, is that the vehicle will be a compact, two-seater, completely eliminating the traditional steering wheel and pedals. Tesla is keeping specifics to a minimum, but early reports suggest the Cybercab will feature a battery pack smaller than 50 kWh, yet still offering an impressive range of approximately 300 miles (483 km).

Progress on the Tesla Semi

Production of the Tesla Semi officially began in late 2022, but progress has been slow. Full-scale production is expected to kick off next year at a new factory adjacent to the existing Gigafactory in Nevada, which will significantly expand Tesla’s production capabilities.

While Elon Musk and President Trump have found common ground on many issues in recent months, tariffs remain a notable point of disagreement. Trump has famously called tariffs “the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” yet Musk has long championed free trade. In fact, according to Reuters, he urged Trump to lower tariffs, though he ultimately left the decision in the President’s hands.

One of the unanticipated consequences of the tariffs was their negative impact on domestic production. Tesla’s CFO, Vaibhav Taneja, noted that the tariffs hurt the company’s US investments, as the company had to import equipment from China to expand its local production lines.

Until recently, Tesla lease customers were left with no option to buy their cars at the end of their lease term. Why? Because Elon Musk was sure that these cars were just biding their time until they could be turned into autonomous robotaxis.

Fast forward a few years, and, surprise, the robotaxi future hasn’t materialized. So, instead of the cars joining some high-tech fleet, Tesla decided to flip them for more profit, and customers aren’t exactly thrilled about it.

More: Yes, New Car Prices Did Jump After Trump Announced Tariffs, Data Proves

In a 2019 earnings call, Musk stated, “You don’t have the option of buying. We want them back.” The “them” being the cars, of course. He went on to confidently predict that by the following year, Tesla would have “over 1 million robotaxis on the road.” The idea was that the hundreds of thousands of leased Teslas would eventually join this futuristic fleet. Tesla even told its lease customers this was the exact reason they couldn’t buy the car they’d been driving.

According to a new report from Reuters, those same cars from 2019 to 2024 ended up with upgrades. And then, Tesla put them back up for sale or sold them via auction. From a business perspective, it’s a savvy move. It costs Tesla basically nothing to upgrade these cars via software and then “jack up the price”, according to an unnamed source who spoke to the outlet.

In some cases, that meant an acceleration boost worth around $2,000. In others, it meant the addition of Full Self-Driving (Supervised) tech, which has cost some customers up to $15,000 at times, though now it’s back down to $8,000.

On the used market, these cars fetched far more than they would have if Tesla had simply let the lessees buy them at the end of their term, particularly during the Covid-induced price surge. Needless to say, customers weren’t thrilled to learn their car had been sold off without their knowledge. One particularly upset owner even called out the brand publicly.

Wow so returning a .@tesla lease is a poor experience. Poor customer service, crazy charges, lies about not being able to buy out my lease, then the car gets sold at auction not turned into a robo taxi like I was told.
Slow clap @elonmusk
Also canceled my cybertruck order.

— PixelsandPeeps (@PixelsandPeeps) May 4, 2024

A Shift In Policy

Things changed in late 2024, however. On November 27, Tesla announced that lessees would now have the freedom to buy their car at the end of their term. Why the change, especially if the automaker is closer than ever to Level 5 autonomy as it claims? Values are dropping faster than ever before. On top of that, competition is getting better, and Tesla’s public perception is struggling right now.

Allowing lessees to buy their vehicle is what most of the auto industry sees as a no-brainer since the customer is already there and connected to the car in question. Of course, this depends on the buyout price, which, in many cases, is still inflated. For instance, the buyout price for a standard Model Y AWD is a hefty $33,251 before taxes, which is higher than current market prices for three year old examples.

Still, the damage done by Tesla to its customer base might be irreparable to a degree. One customer told Reuters that “I love the car, I just don’t like what has been going on at the top with the CEO. I don’t want to be associated with that anymore.” At least Tesla’s new plan seems to be to build its own Robotaxi fleet. Whether it gets to even call it that remains up for debate.

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

This story was published in partnership with the Center for Media and Democracy, 

The more than $100 million spent on this spring’s Supreme Court election in Wisconsin set a new national record for spending on a state judicial race. The figure almost doubles the previous record of $51 million, which donors poured into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in 2023. 

“The spending in this race is an indication of just how dominant state high courts have become in the biggest political fights playing out today,” Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program, told the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). He pointed to the “growing recognition” of the significance of state courts in ruling on both challenges to election laws and abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. 

The record spending on the 2025 Wisconsin race, the pathways the money traveled and the outsized influence of a few major donors raise questions about the future and fairness of judicial elections in Wisconsin and beyond. 

Outside spending

The campaign for liberal candidate Susan Crawford — who ultimately won the election by 10 points — raised more than $28.3 million, while her conservative counterpart Brad Schimel pulled in over $15.1 million in campaign funding, according to a CMD analysis of Wisconsin Ethics Commission filings. 

Special interest and ideological political action committees (PACs) accounted for the majority of the spending, dropping almost $57 million on both the liberal and conservative candidates. Thirteen of those outside groups spent more than $1 million each (and in many cases, well over $1 million) on the race, for a total of $48.8 million — more than the combined total raised by the two campaigns. 

 

“Big money has ruined us,” Janine Geske, a retired Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told CMD. “It distresses me. It just goes to the heart of the independence of the judiciary.” 

Several of the highest spending groups are linked to just a small number of individuals. Billionaire Charles Koch’s astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity spent more than $3.3 million, while shipping giant Richard Uihlein’s Fair Courts America super PAC spent over $4.4 million. 

Few backers drew more attention than Trump’s top campaign donor Elon Musk, who funneled nearly $18.7 million into the race to boost Schimel through his America PAC and the Building America’s Future PAC, a group he has reportedly funded in part since 2022.

“The Musk involvement helped politicize [and polarize] the race,” Charles Franklin, professor of law and director of the Marquette Law School Poll, told CMD. “That was a brand new element.” 

There was a strong turnout in the April election, with 51% of Wisconsin’s eligible voters casting ballots — remarkably high for an election in which the state Supreme Court was the highest office on the ballot. 

“Voter turnout is up because the race is important, but it’s also up because so much money is being poured into it,” Franklin said, noting a 15-year rise in turnout in the state’s elections for its highest court. 

Political party loophole

Although Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, the state’s Republican and Democratic parties played major roles. “It’s been so obviously a de facto partisan race for several cycles,” said Franklin, who also highlighted the significance of endorsements from President Trump and former President Obama in the election. 

The maximum amount that can be legally given to the campaign committee of a candidate running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court is $20,000. However, individuals can make unlimited contributions to a political party. Some donors use this as a legal loophole to funnel money to judicial candidates by first giving money to the state party, which then transfers the funds to the candidate’s campaign committee. 

In the most recent election, the Wisconsin Democratic Party gave more than $10.4 million to Crawford while the state GOP contributed over $9.5 million to Schimel, according to a CMD analysis of Wisconsin Ethics Commission filings. The contributions from the state parties accounted for almost two-thirds of Schimel’s overall campaign spending and more than a third of Crawford’s. 

The top donor to one of the two major political parties in Wisconsin is Diane Hendricks, who has given just under $3.6 million so far this year to the state GOP. She is the owner of Hendricks Holdings and a co-founder of ABC Roofing Supplies, the largest roofing supply company in the country. 

 

In addition to the $18.7 million Musk spent through PACs, he also gave $3 million to the Wisconsin GOP this year. Similarly, Richard Uihlein has given nearly $1.7 million to the

Wisconsin GOP in 2025 on top of the $4.4 million his PAC dropped on the race. His wife, Elizabeth Uihlein, gave more than $2.1 million to the state party. The couple each sent the maximum individual contribution of $20,000 to Schimel’s campaign as well. 

Major donations also flowed in on the Democratic side. Billionaire investor George Soros gave $2 million and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker gave $1.5 million to Wisconsin’s Democratic Party. 

Reform prospects 

The Marquette Law School Poll conducted in February found that 61% of respondents believe party contributions reduce the independence of judges. 

“It’s crucial that the public be able to look at courts and think they’re doing something different than raw politics,” Keith said. “This kind of an election makes it really hard for them to think of courts that way if the process for picking judges looks like the process for picking a U.S. senator.” 

Geske, who supports judicial elections in principle, shares that concern. “If there is no faith, we don’t have a system. It doesn’t work.” 

Yet, in that same poll, 90% of respondents said it was better to elect rather than appoint state Supreme Court justices. Wisconsin is one of 14 states that rely on nonpartisan elections to choose their Supreme Court justices, a practice it has followed since becoming a state in 1848. 

While the Marquette Law School Poll suggests there is broad public support for electing judges, record-breaking spending on those races raises concerns about judicial independence. 

The rising tide of outside spending is unlikely to recede, particularly given the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) allowing unlimited outside spending on elections, including for judicial races. 

“Citizens United really set us back,” Geske said. “It destroyed the ability to have an independent judicial race where people can really look at the quality of the candidate versus the politics of it.” 

In 2017, she was one of 54 judges who petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for stricter ethics rules to prevent judges from hearing cases involving major campaign contributors. But since the petition was ultimately rejected, no state rule currently requires a judge’s recusal or automatic disqualification from hearing such a case. The decision to recuse is left up to each individual justice in each case. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) held that a judge’s recusal is required when the campaign support received is so significant that it creates a “serious risk of actual bias,” but that standard has rarely been applied since the decision.

Geske had hoped that Wisconsin’s highest court would revisit the possibility of stricter ethics rules in this context but now thinks that is unlikely given the significant financial contributions several justices have received. She believes that stronger guidelines rather than requiring mandatory recusal may be a more viable option. 

Even if recusal guidelines were strengthened, Geske noted there would be practical complications if a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice stepped aside from a case. Unlike some other states, Wisconsin has no system for replacing a recused justice. If one of the seven justices steps aside, the court could be left with risking a deadlocked 3–3 decision. 

Beyond the question of independence, Keith said more could be done to enhance transparency in Wisconsin judicial elections overall, such as requiring more frequent financial disclosures. “While we know a lot about what groups were spending and how much they spent, we know very little about where their money was coming from,” he pointed out. “A lot of it is informed guesswork.” 

“The unprecedented and obscenely high amount of political money being raised and spent in Wisconsin Supreme Court elections is a fairly new and horrific development in our state,” wrote Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, in 2024. “It wasn’t always this way here and it cannot and should not continue.” 

Heck pointed out that Wisconsin enacted the Impartial Justice Act in 2009, which provided public financing for state Supreme Court campaigns in exchange for a voluntary spending cap and a ban on soliciting private contributions. However, Republican Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature repealed the measure and dramatically weakened Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. 

“We went from being the progressive good government promised land to the political wasteland of the country,” Heck said. 

Common Cause has called for updating and reinstating the 2009 reforms, along with strengthening recusal rules and prohibiting coordination between campaigns and outside groups. 

A recent poll by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign found that almost three of four Wisconsin voters want limits on outside PACs, but that reform is not possible until the Citizens United decision is overturned. 

Next year’s Supreme Court election 

Major reforms are unlikely before the next election in April 2026, when conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley will be seeking to retain her seat. Spending will likely be lower than in this year’s race given that the court’s new 4–3 liberal majority will not be in play.

However, the scale and tone of the 2025 race may influence the 2026 election and others in different ways. Geske said she knows judges who would have previously considered running for the state Supreme Court but are no longer interested. 

“When you get into these kinds of numbers and that kind of race, they’re not going to put themselves and their families through it,” she said. “It narrows the number of people who are willing to run for the court.” 

Geske said that if judicial elections had been like this when she ran in 1993, she wouldn’t have run. “When I was running, we really tried to have bipartisan support,” she said. “Now it really is: ‘Whose side are you on?’” 

“I think that will continue and, as a result, I think that big money will continue to follow.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tesla’s sales slump in Europe isn’t letting up, and now it’s starting to look like more than just a temporary dip from the Model Y changeover. For the fourth month in a row, the EV company’s numbers are sliding in several key markets, and this time the declines are steep. In April, at least three major countries reported year-over-year drops of more than 59 percent. Tesla may be running out of time to figure out how to stop the bleeding.

Read: Tesla’s In Crisis, How Would You Save It?

Tesla’s sales are diving headfirst into the red. In France, deliveries were down 59.4 percent compared to April last year, with just 863 vehicles sold. Denmark saw a 67.2 percent decrease, bringing the monthly total there to only 180 cars. But, as reported by Reuters, Sweden takes the prize for most dramatic plunge: sales dropped 80.7 percent, from 1,052 units last April to just 208 this year.

A Rougher Ride Ahead

The broader trend doesn’t look much better. Tesla’s overall European sales dropped 28.2 percent in March, and April seems poised to show even worse results once full data is available. In Norway, figures from OFV show that Tesla’s market share has slipped from 18 percent to just 11 percent compared to the same period last year.

Chinese automakers, meanwhile, have moved ahead, claiming 12 percent of Norway’s market. “Tesla is nowhere near the level we are used to; you can’t pretend otherwise,” OFV noted.

Much of this feels like a perfect storm against Tesla alone. Tesla has chalked up its weak Q1 performance to a production switch from the outgoing Model Y to the updated version. But that’s only part of the story and it doesn’t apply to Europe which received the facelift model early on in the year.

At the same time, it’s facing pressure from rival brands and even more from Chinese EVs that often sell for less. On top of all that, Elon Musk’s political views have distanced many of his customer base in the area.

That said, it’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this sales dip from an official Tesla standpoint. The company openly said that production slowdowns from the first quarter are done, so what will it say if this downward projection continues?

Will it reverse course on its public statements about searching for a new CEO? How will it explain a sales dip when its most popular model, the Y, is struggling to sell despite just launching a heavily updated version? Only time will tell. 

Since Elon Musk aligned himself with President Donald Trump and began cutting funding and jobs through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), attacks and protests targeting Tesla have surged. Earlier this week, another Tesla vehicle was hit, and by Wednesday, the accused suspect had already been indicted by a federal grand jury.

On Monday, Ian William Moses was accused of starting a fire at a Tesla dealership n Mesa, Arizona. According to federal prosecutors, Moses placed fire-starter logs near the building, soaked them in gasoline, and sparked a blaze that damaged the showroom and destroyed a Cybertruck parked outside.

Read: Cybertruck Owner’s Nazi Salutes Destroy His Business Overnight After Brutal Yelp Firestorm

Security footage reportedly caught someone in a black mask, hooded sweatshirt, and baseball cap near the scene. About 90 minutes later, local police arrested Moses, who was allegedly wearing the same outfit. Authorities say he also had a hand-drawn map of the dealership in his pocket, which sounds like something out of a low-budget spy movie, minus the intrigue.

He’s now been charged with five counts of maliciously damaging property and vehicles in interstate commerce by means of fire. Each count carries a fine of up to $250,000 and a prison term between five and 20 years.

“There is nothing American about burning down someone else’s business because you disagree with them politically,” US Attorney Timothy Couchaine said in the case. “These ongoing attacks against Tesla are not protests, they are acts of violence that have no place in Arizona or anywhere else. If someone targets Tesla with violence, they will be found and confronted with the full force of the law.”

This indictment comes less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a public warning to would-be attackers of Tesla facilities or vehicles: “We will arrest you, we will prosecute you, and we will not negotiate. Crimes have consequences.”

Photos DOJ

Protesters gather outside the Federal Building in Milwaukee to denounce the arrest of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan on Friday, April 25. Groups that took part in the demonstration say Dugan's arrest has given new gravity to this year's protests planned for May Day in support of immigrants and workers. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Leaders of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), a national network of immigration reform activists, held a virtual press conference Wednesday, ahead of a nationwide day of action on May 1. Although May Day demonstrations are held annually, this year the protests carry a new gravity. Leaders of organizations including FAIR, composed of 38 immigrant-led groups across 32 states, drew attention to the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, and growing concerns about the Trump Administration targeting immigrant communities. 

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the Wisconsin-based Voces de la Frontera, said momentum to resist Trump’s  policies has grown after the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. “It was a resounding defeat at the voting booth for Trump’s endorsed candidate for our state Supreme Court race, and a resounding rejection of Elon Musk’s blatant efforts to buy our election,” Neumann-Ortiz said during the Wednesday press conference.

After the election, Wisconsinites mobilized to participate in mass protests against Trump and Musk’s firing of federal workers and canceling of federal programs. United, mass actions, Neumann-Ortiz said, will be crucial in the days ahead. The May Day protest, she said, “really represents the next iteration in this warring resistance to Trump’s efforts to impose dictatorship in this country, and to really challenge the scapegoating of immigrants and refugees for social inequality [while]  he is contributing to significantly widening that gap.” 

May Day also will be an important platform to build alliances between working-class people, she said. Neumann-Ortiz said communities in Wisconsin had recently experienced “an operation that was being conducted by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigators under so-called ‘wellness checks’ of unaccompanied [immigrant] minors and their sponsors’ homes.” 

Voces de la Fronterea learned of the operation through a 24/7 immigration emergency hotline the group operates. Neumann-Ortiz told Wisconsin Examiner that Voces de la Frontera is aware of such cases in Milwaukee, Whitewater, and Waukesha. The group had received a call involving an 8th grade student who was home alone when several armed agents arrived, allegedly saying they didn’t need a judicial warrant to enter. 

“So again, it was just these manipulative tactics,” Neumann-Ortiz told Wisconsin Examiner. After Voces de la Frontera was contacted, the group sent an immediate community response to assess what was going on. “What we uncovered is that basically this was an operation that’s being conducted to check in on unaccompanied minors who had come through and had a sponsor like, in this case, a family member. But again, this is not the role of the FBI. Their job is to target organized crime, or trafficking, things like that. They do not…This is not how any kind of wellness check is conducted. This is not the body…the agency that would do that.” 

Neumann-Ortiz said that Voces members insisted that if agents wanted to interview the minor, they should go to an attorney’s office to do the interview. “We do feel that this is, I would say, highly suspect in terms of what could unfold.”

Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) offices in Milwaukee regarding the “wellness checks.” A FBI spokesperson said in an emailed statement that, “The FBI is assisting our partners including, Homeland Security Investigations and Office of Refugee Resettlement, with a nationwide effort to conduct welfare checks on thousands of unaccompanied children who have been identified as crossing the border without a parent or legal guardian. Sadly, children crossing the border alone and living in the U.S. without the protection of a loving parent or guardian can be vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking, and violence. Protecting children is a critical mission for the FBI and we will continue to work with our federal, state, and local partners to secure their safety and well-being.”

An ICE spokesperson said in an email the agency is “familiar” with the Wisconsin Examiner’s inquiry, and said to contact the Department of Homeland Security. In response to Wisconsin Examiner’s inquiry, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement, “The previous administration allowed many of these children who came across the border unaccompanied to be placed with sponsors who were actually smugglers and sex traffickers.” 

McLaughlin added, “DHS is leading efforts to conduct welfare checks on these children to ensure that they are safe and not being exploited. Unlike the previous administration, President Trump and Secretary Noem take the responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to reunite children with their families. In less than 100 days, Secretary Noem and Secretary Kennedy have already reunited over 5,000 unaccompanied children with a relative or safe guardian.”

Since late March, at least three people have been arrested by ICE agents as they appeared at the Milwaukee County Courthouse for routine proceedings. The most recent arrest also resulted in an FBI investigation being launched against Judge Dugan, who federal agencies accuse of obstructing their effort to arrest a man who was appearing before her. The arrest drew thousands of people into the streets to support Dugan. On Saturday, April 26, over 1,200 people gathered outside the Milwaukee FBI office, decrying Dugan’s arrest as authoritarian, fascist, and inconsistent with American values. 

On the press conference call Wednesday, Neumann-Ortiz was joined by leaders of FIRM-member organizations from across the country. May Day protests are expected in states across the country. David Chiles, interim executive director of Sunflower Community Action in Kansas said Trump’s policies are “a race to the bottom” and “a war on wages, on benefits, on dignity itself.” Chiles said that on Thursday, “we’re fighting back.” Cathryn Jackson, public policy director of CASA, who will march with groups toward the White House, said, “Immigrants and allies are rising up to say ‘enough is enough.’  May 1, international day of action, we are joining hundreds of marches, rallies, walk-outs, demonstrations with one very clear unified message” — One struggle, one fight, workers unite.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Demonstrators holds signs as a motorist passes with flags supporting President Donald Trump during an April 5, 2025, protest in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestors organized nationwide demonstrations against Trump administration policies and Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tuesday marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s second term, a period filled almost daily with executive orders seeking to expand presidential power, court challenges to block those orders and economic anxiety that undermines his promised prosperity.

Trump has taken decisive actions that have polarized the electorate. He’s used obscure authorities to increase deportations, upended longstanding trade policy with record-high tariffs, made drastic cuts to the federal workforce and ordered the closure of the Education Department.

Those moves have garnered mixed results and led to legal challenges.

The approach to immigration enforcement has yielded lower numbers of unauthorized border crossings compared to last year. But the immigration crackdown has barreled the country toward a constitutional crisis through various clashes with the judiciary branch.

Those nearing retirement have watched their savings shrink as Trump’s blunt application of tariffs, which he promises will replace income taxes, roils markets. Administration officials have promised the short-term tariff pain will benefit the country in the long term.

And White House advisor and top campaign donor Elon Musk’s efforts at government efficiency have resulted in eliminations of wide swaths of government jobs. That includes about half of the Education Department workforce so far, though Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the department.

The controversial moves appear unpopular, as Americans delivered record low approval ratings for a president so early in his term. Polls spearheaded by Fox News, NPR, Gallup and numerous others yield overall disapproval of Trump’s job performance.

Deportation push tests legal boundaries

Immigration was Trump’s signature issue on the campaign trail and his first 100 days were marked by a crackdown carried out against people with a range of immigration statuses and at least three U.S. citizen children. The aggressive push has led to clashes with the judiciary branch.

A burst of Inauguration Day executive orders Trump signed upon his return to office included some hardline immigration policies he’d promised.

On day one, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border that enabled his deployment two days later of 1,500 troops to help border enforcement.

He sought to end birthright citizenship and ended several forms of legal immigration, including humanitarian parole for people from certain countries, and suspended refugee resettlement services.

District courts blocked the birthright citizenship and refugee resettlement measures and an appeals court has upheld those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on birthright citizenship.

Trump’s record on immigration is a clear example of his desire to expand executive power, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

“It’s an attempt to expand the government’s powers far beyond anything that we have seen before in this realm,” he said.

Unprecedented authorities

The administration has taken a series of actions considered nearly unprecedented to conduct mass deportations.

On March 8, immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who helped organize Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

Authorities never accused Khalil of committing a crime, but sought to revoke his green card under a Cold War-era provision that allows the secretary of State to remove lawful permanent residents if the secretary deems their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Similar arrests followed at universities across the country.

In mid-March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport two planeloads of people his administration said belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

It was only the fourth time the law was invoked and the first outside of wartime. The first flights left U.S. soil en route to a mega-prison in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, amid a hearing on the legality of using the law in peacetime.

When a federal judge entered an oral order to turn the flights around, the administration refused, arguing the oral order was not valid. The administration also ignored a subsequent written order demanding the return of the flights, later arguing the flights were outside U.S. airspace at that time and impossible to order returned.

Administration officials mocked the court order on social media.

The Supreme Court on April 7 allowed for the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. However, the justices unanimously agreed that those removed under the wartime law needed to have due process and have a hearing to challenge their removal.

Abrego Garcia

A third March 15 flight carried a man who was mistakenly deported in an episode that has gained a national spotlight.

Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, had a final order of removal, but was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge because of the threat he would be harmed by gangs if he were returned to his home country. Despite the protective order, he was deported to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT prison.

After his family sued over his deportation, the administration admitted he’d been removed through an “administrative error,” but stood by its decision.

The administration argued it had no power to compel the El Salvador government to release Abrego Garcia, despite a possibly illegal $6 million agreement with the country to detain the roughly 300 men.

A Maryland federal court and an appeals court ruled the administration must repatriate Abrego Garcia, whose wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, but stopped short of requiring it.

The administration has done little to indicate it is complying with that order, earning a rebuke from a conservative judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The Supreme Court’s decision does not … allow the government to do essentially nothing,” Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote.  “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”

The administration’s relationship with the courts — delaying compliance with orders and showing a clear distaste for doing so — has led to the brink of a constitutional crisis, Arulanantham said.

“They’re playing footsy with disregarding court orders,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re not just complying. If they were complying, Abrego Garcia would be here now.”

But the administration has also not flagrantly refused to comply, Arulanantham added. “They’re sort of testing the bounds.”

Tariffs prompted market drop

Trump’s first 100 days spiraled into economic uncertainty as he ramped up tariffs on allies and trading partners. In early April, the president declared foreign trade a national emergency and shocked economies around the world with costly import taxes.

Following a week of market upheaval, Trump paused for 90 days what he had billed as “reciprocal” tariffs and left a universal 10% levy on nearly all countries, except China, which received a bruising 125%.

Some products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and copper, remain exempt for now, though the administration is eyeing the possibilities of tariffs on those goods.

The administration now contends it will strike trade deals with some 90 foreign governments over the pause, set to expire in July.

Meanwhile, an all-out trade war rages with China after Trump hiked tariffs on the world’s no. 2 economy even further to 145%. China responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The two economies share a massive trading relationship, both in the top three for each other’s imports and exports.

‘Chaotic’ strategy

Inu Manak, fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up Trump’s first 100 days as “chaotic.”

“We haven’t seen anything like this in our U.S. history in terms of how trade policy is being handled. It’s very ad hoc,” Manak said.

“U.S. businesses can’t figure out what to do. And even for the large companies, it’s hard for them to know some of the long-term trajectories of where this was going to go,” Manak said.

Shortly after his second term began, Trump declared a national emergency over illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. — an unprecedented move to trigger import taxes — and began escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as up to 25% on certain products crossing the borders from Canada and Mexico.

Trump hiked existing tariffs on steel and aluminum in mid-March under trade provisions meant to protect domestic production and national security, followed by 25% levies on foreign cars and auto parts — though Trump signed two executive orders Tuesday to grant some tariff relief to carmakers. 

The import taxes have alarmed investors, small businesses and American consumers following the 2024 presidential campaign when Trump made lowering prices a major tenet of his platform.

The latest University of Michigan survey of consumers — a staple indicator for economists — reported consumer outlook on personal finances and business conditions took a nosedive in April. Expectations dropped 32% since January, the largest three-month percentage decline since the 1990 recession, according to the analysis. 

Manak said Trump’s tariffs are “really at odds with” with the administration’s objectives of helping U.S. manufacturers and cutting costs for Americans.

“The U.S. now has the highest tariff rates in the world,” she said. “That’s going to hurt both consuming industries that import products to make things, and then consumers as well. We’re starting to see notifications coming out on layoffs, and some small businesses considering closing up shop already. And the tariffs haven’t been in place for that long.”

Rhett Buttle, of Small Business for America’s Future, said the policies are “causing real damage in terms of not just planning, but in terms of day-to-day operations.”

Buttle, a senior advisor for the advocacy group that claims 85,000 small business members, said even if Trump begins to strike deals with other countries, entrepreneurs will likely be on edge for months to come.

“It’s that uncertainty that makes business owners not want to hire or not want to grow,” Buttle said. “So it’s like, ‘Okay, we got through this mess, but why would I hire a person if I don’t know if I’m gonna wake up in two weeks and there’s gonna be another announcement?’”

Support dropping

Trillions were erased from the U.S. stock market after “Liberation Day” — the White House’s term for the start of its global tariff policy. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies, is overall down 8.5% since Trump’s inauguration, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis.

Numerous recent polls showed flagging support for Trump’s economic policies.

In a poll released Monday, Gallup found 89% of Americans believe tariffs will result in increasing prices. And a majority of Americans are concerned about an economic recession and increasing costs of groceries and other goods, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey between April 17 and April 22.

The Pew Research Center similarly found a growing gloomy outlook among U.S. adults from April 7 to April 13. Results showed a majority of Americans — 59% across race, age and income levels — disapproved of Trump’s approach to tariffs. But when broken down by party, the survey showed a majority of Democrats disapprove while the majority of Republicans approve of the tariff policy.

American households are poised to lose up to $2,600 annually if tariffs remain in place and U.S. fiscal policy doesn’t change, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Analyses show low-income households will be disproportionately affected.

“If these tariffs stay in place, some folks are going to benefit, but a lot of people are going to get hurt,” Manak said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Government spending

Trump began his second term with a flurry of action on government spending, challenging the balance of power between the president and Congress.

Efforts to unilaterally cancel funding already approved by lawmakers, who hold the authority to spend federal dollars under the Constitution, led to confusion and frustration from both Democrats and Republicans, especially after the U.S. DOGE Service froze allocations on programs that have long elicited bipartisan support.

Many of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back appropriations are subject to injunctions from federal courts, blocking the cuts from moving forward while the lawsuits advance through the judicial system.

Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s actions on spending so far have sought to expand the bounds of presidential authority.

“We’ve never seen a president in modern times who’s been this aggressive in trying to seize control of the power of the purse,” he said. “To just say, ‘I’m not going to fund this agency, like USAID, despite money being appropriated for it. And we’re going to walk over and take their plaque off their wall and lock their doors.’ This is new.”

Many of Trump’s actions so far indicate to Kosar that the administration expects a change to the balance of power following next year’s midterm elections, when the president’s party historically loses control of at least one chamber of Congress.

“It feels to me that the first 100 days are in large part predicated on an assumption that they may only have two years of unified Republican control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency,” he said. “We know the margins in the House are quite narrow, and the heavy use of executive actions and the simple defunding of various government contracts and agencies all through executive action, just tell me that the administration feels like they have to get everything done as fast as they possibly can, because the time is short.”

Kosar said he’s watching to see if Trump works with Republicans in Congress, while they still have unified control, to codify his executive orders into law — something he didn’t do with many of the unilateral actions he took during his first term.

“He just did executive actions, which, of course, (President Joe) Biden just undid,” he said. “And I’m just wondering: Are we going to see this movie all over again? Or is he going to actually partner with Congress on these various policy matters and pass statutes so that they stick?”

Zachary Peskowitz, associate professor of political science at Emory University, said Trump has been much more “assertive” during the last 100 days than during the first few months of 2017.

DOGE ‘winding down’

U.S. DOGE Service and Musk hit the ground running, though their actions have fallen short of the goals he set, and appear to be sunsetting with the billionaire turning his attention back toward his businesses.

“I think the big bang is winding down. They did a lot of things early on. It’s not clear how many of them are going to stick, what the consequences are,” Peskowitz said. “And I think, big picture, in terms of federal spending, the amounts of money that may have been saved or not are pretty small.”

Democrats in Congress released a tracker Tuesday listing which accounts the Trump administration has frozen or canceled to the tune of more than $430 billion.

But Trump has just gotten started.

The administration plans to submit its first budget request to Congress in the coming days, a step that’s typically taken in early February, though it happens a couple months behind schedule during a president’s first year.

That massive tax-and-spending proposal will begin the classic tug-of-war between Congress, which will draft the dozen annual appropriations bills, and Trump, who has shown a willingness to act unilaterally when he doesn’t get his way.

Trump and lawmakers must agree to some sort of government funding bill before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise a partial government shutdown would begin. And unlike the reconciliation package that Republicans can enact all on their own, funding bills require some Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold.

Eliminating the Education Department

Researchers and advocates predicted even more changes to the federal role in education, underscoring anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a continued ideological battle with higher education that have marked Trump’s approach to education policy in his first 100 days.

In a torrent of education-related decisions, Trump and his administration have tried to dismantle the Education Department via an executive order, slashed more than 1,300 employees at the department, threatened to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and cracked down on “woke” higher education.

The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to revoke federal funding for a number of elite universities in an attempt to make the institutions align more with them ideologically.

Rachel Perera, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, cited “brazen lawlessness” when reflecting on Trump’s approach to higher education in his second term.

“The ways that they’re trying to withhold funding from universities are very clearly in violation of federal law and the processes mandated by civil rights law in terms of ensuring that institutions are offered due process in assessing whether violations have taken place,” Perera said. “There’s not even a pretense of pretending to investigate some of these institutions before taking really dramatic action.”

Whether the administration’s approach continues or not depends on court action, she added.

“I think what the next three years might look like is really going to depend on how some of these lawsuits play out,” Perera said, referencing some of the major legal battles involving the Trump administration. 

Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said “much of what this administration has done has been overreach.” He pointed to the Education Department’s letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices across aspects of student life as one example.

Del Pilar, who was previously deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the state of Pennsylvania, said the administration is “going to take any opportunity to grab at power that advances their ideology.”

Meanwhile, Perera said the consequences of the department implementing a reduction in force plan in March “have yet to be felt.”

“I think we will start to see really the material consequences of the reduced staffing capacity in the coming years, in terms of how programs are administered, in terms of how funding is moving out the building, in terms of auditing, making sure funding is going to the right groups of students that Congress intended for the money to go to, whether big data collection efforts that are congressionally mandated are being carried out in timely and effective ways,” she said.

“All of that remains to be seen.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

The state of New York is one of the most pro-electric areas in the US, but its residents could soon find it much harder to buy America’s most popular EVs. A new bill proposes ending Tesla’s license to sell directly in the state, which could mean the brand losing access to its existing showrooms.

New York has for over 10 years outlawed direct selling, demanding all automakers sell through franchised dealers. But when that law passed in 2014 it contained an exemption for Tesla, giving it the right to continue operating five retail outlets it was already selling from. Now lawmakers want to pull those five permits and offer them to other EV companies, and not for anything Tesla has done, but due to the actions of its CEO, Elon Musk.

Related: New York Could End Tesla’s Direct Sales And Musk’s DOGE Drama Is To Blame

New York State Sen. Patricia Fahy (Dem) described Musk to the New York Times as “part of an administration that is killing all the grant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure, killing wind energy, killing anything that might address climate change.”

“Why should we give [Tesla] a monopoly?” Fahy, the co-sponsor of the bill, asked.

Musk helped bankroll President Trump’s successful bid to return to the White House, and in Fahy’s eyes set back efforts to combat climate change. And the Telsa boss’s controversial job-slashing efficiency drive and push to access IRS information with DOGE has hardly endeared himself to New York’s lawmakers.

In addition to rescinding Tesla’s showroom licenses, and opposing the establishment of a new one at Colonie, Democrats want the state to audit a deal that allowed the automaker to run a plant near Buffalo on a $1 per year lease and receive almost $1 billion in benefits. They want the subsidies returned and for those managing the state and city pension funds to get rid of any investments in Tesla.

If Tesla is forced from its retail stores, buyers would have to travel out of state to get their new cars, though the brand would still maintain a NY presence in the form of showrooms that allow people to see and sit in the company’s EVs but not actually place an order. The five stores that Tesla currently has could be offered to rival brands including Lucid, Rivian and Scout.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Democratic legislators on April 10 introduced Assembly Bill 227, which would expand Wisconsin’s existing election bribery laws to also prohibit people from making payments to voters in exchange for signing petitions during an election period.

The bill was introduced just nine days after the April 1 election, before which Elon Musk offered the public $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges.” At an event just two days before the election, Musk gave two Wisconsin voters $1 million checks. 

Here’s what you need to know: 

Context

Wisconsin law already prohibits election bribery and makes it illegal to offer “anything of value,” including money, to bribe an elector to go to or refrain from going to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular person.

In a deleted X post from March 27, Musk said $1 million checks would be awarded “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote” in the April 1 election between liberal Judge Susan Crawford and conservative Judge Brad Schimel. Musk followed this up with another X post a day later on March 28 to say the checks would be awarded to two individuals to be “spokesmen for the petition.” 

On March 29, Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit against Musk and the Musk-affiliated America PAC. In the complaint, Kaul requested the court grant a temporary restraining order to stop Musk from promoting the $1 million gifts, calling the giveaway “a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11.”

But judges in Columbia County Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear Kaul’s petition. Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voight filed a dismissal order April 1, saying Kaul’s complaint lacked two of the four required elements for a temporary restraining order — no alleged irreparable harm and no explanation of why the temporary restraining order was the only possible solution. 

Voight noted at the end of his dismissal that the court did not come to a conclusion as to whether Musk and America PAC’s actions were illegal. 

Musk gave out the $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters who signed his America PAC petition during a Green Bay rally on March 30. 

The actions on behalf of Musk and America PAC consequently sparked debates regarding the legality and ethics of the petition. 

The bill

In an effort led by Rep. Lee Snodgrass, D-Appleton, the “Petition Payment Prohibition Act” would expand existing election bribery laws to prohibit bribing voters to sign or refrain from signing election nomination papers, recall petitions and other petitions, including in support or opposition of candidates. 

“To be clear, election bribery is already illegal in Wisconsin,” the co-authors wrote in a memo to their legislative colleagues. “However, Musk has attempted to circumvent this law by paying people to sign a petition instead — something not explicitly banned by current law.”

If passed, the bill would prohibit anyone from offering anything of value — exceeding $5 — to influence whether or not someone signs a petition relating to elections. These petitions include those opposing and supporting candidates or referendums, political or social issues, state law, and proposed or potential legislation, according to the bill. 

The prohibition would only be enforced when it relates directly to an election or referendum or if it is circulated during an election period, which the bill defines as the period between Dec. 1 and the spring election or April 15 and the general election. 

Under the bill, it would be illegal to pay someone $100 to sign a petition within an election period that is in support of a state referendum or a candidate.

Election bribery is currently a Class I felony, meaning if the bill passes, violators could face up to three-and-a-half years in prison, a fine as high as $10,000 or both. 

So, what’s next?

So far 34 Democratic lawmakers support the “Petition Payment Prohibition Act,” in addition to Snodgrass. No Republicans have signed on.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Campaigns and Elections where the Republican who heads the committee could schedule a public hearing and vote. Republicans who control the Legislature could then schedule it for a vote in the full Assembly. An identical version must also pass the Senate. 

If this bill passes, it would be sent to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who can either sign or veto it. 

Democratic sponsors said the bill should be bipartisan.

“Candidates and issue groups should use the strength of their message to attract voters to their cause, not cash bribes or promises of financial reward,” the sponsors said in a memo to colleagues. “It is a gross perversion of our democracy and must not be allowed to continue in future elections. Failing to act is a tacit acceptance that our votes are for sale. Rejecting this premise is something members of both parties should be able to agree on.”

Bill seeks to block future $1 million Wisconsin election giveaways is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O’Malley came to Wisconsin this week as he travels the country warning about the danger of cuts to the administration. | Photo courtesy Maryland's Executive Office of the Governor.

Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and Social Security commissioner under President Joe Biden, was rushing around Wisconsin Thursday, conducting a flurry of local media interviews before speaking at an evening town hall in Racine.

“I’ve found myself doing a lot of town halls,” O’Malley said, speaking on his phone from the passenger seat of a car as he hurried to a local TV station.

On Wednesday, he was in Kansas City, Missouri, talking to constituents of Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. Before that he traveled to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, at the invitation of a grassroots group to speak to a big crowd of people worried about threatened cuts to benefits for seniors.

In Racine on Thursday night he joined a town hall hosted by the progressive coalition group Opportunity Wisconsin. U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican who represents the 1st District, was invited, but did not attend.

“Having served in the agency so recently, as its last confirmed commissioner, I just feel a responsibility to speak up,” O’Malley said of his detour from private life to travel the country criticizing President Donald Trump and Elon Musk for cutting Social Security staff and closing offices.

“The only thing that’s going to stop the driving of Social Security into system collapse is the American people rising up,” he added.

When he came into the Social Security Administration in 2023, O’Malley said, a decade of staff reductions had reduced the agency’s workforce to a 50-year low, just as the Baby Boom generation was causing a spike in the number of retirees it was serving. As a result, “every line of service was headed in the wrong direction.”

“The agency needed to turn things around, and to their credit they did it,” he said. O’Malley is full of praise for the federal workers he supervised, who reduced call wait times from 42 and a half minutes on average to 12.8 minutes, along with other improvements. “It’s one of the most highly skilled executive services I’ve ever worked with,” he said, including when he served as mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland. The “obsessive compulsive” culture of the agency, as O’Malley affectionately terms it, has meant that over the last 90 years, no one missed a check.

Then came Trump and Musk, who “unleashed a reign of terror on those employees” — “the same people who got us through COVID without ever missing a payment.”

Mass firings, a hostile work environment, and the huge waste of taxpayer money as employees were paid to walk out the door appalled O’Malley.

Instead of rooting out “waste fraud and abuse,” Musk’s DOGE cut the IT department in half, undoing the work O’Malley and his colleagues had done to improve service at the agency. 

As Trump and Musk drive out the people who know how the system works, intermittent IT outages have become a problem. The website for Social Security accounts has gone down. Wait times are skyrocketing. And as the problems get worse, O’Malley said, “ultimately, it will interrupt benefits.”

“I don’t know when it will happen,” he said, “but when it breaks, it will break.”

What is the point of this wanton destruction? 

“I don’t know what the end game is,” O’Malley said.  

Members of Congress in both political parties have told him they think Trump and Musk have set their sights on the $2.6 trillion in the Social Security trust fund in order to make tax cuts for the superwealthy permanent.

Then there’s Musk’s nihilistic ideology, captured in his assertion that “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.” 

“There’s no more empathetic program than Social Security,” says O’Malley. “It guarantees widows and orphans and people who are disabled don’t live in poverty. Maybe Musk thinks those are useless members of society who don’t help build his immense wealth. I don’t know.”

Whatever their motives, O’Malley is certain that Musk and Trump must be stopped from a campaign that will end in enormous damage to Americans. 

O’Malley’s message is the opposite of Musk’s — far from being riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, the Social Security administration is a model. Fraud affects less than one-half of 1% of Social Security funds. And far from being wasteful, the program spends 1.2% of its budget on overhead, meaning it could be seen as the most efficient insurance company in the world. Private health insurance companies have notoriously high administrative costs.

Other “Big Lies” O’Malley is out to bust include the whopper that immigrants without legal status are draining resources from the system. In fact, they pay about $26 billion in Social Security tax withholdings to fund benefits they themselves can never access, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Nor are dead people drawing Social Security benefits. “There is no zombie apocalypse,” says O’Malley. Facts and figures supporting the efficiency of Social Security are laid out in plain language on his website, winbackourcountry.com.

The good news is that people are beginning to push back on the idea that Social Security is riddled with abuse and should be made more “efficient.” 

“Congress people are getting a heck of a lot more calls now than they did two months ago,” O’Malley said, “whether it’s from people experiencing long wait times, or having trouble accessing the benefits they’ve worked their whole lives to earn, or who are just seeing what’s happening on the news.”

That pressure is absolutely necessary if we are going to prevent the raiding and destruction of a New Deal program that has served so many people so well for generations. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tesla just took a big step forward toward bringing robotaxis to the public. Strangely, it didn’t come with a bunch of fanfare from its CEO either. Instead, the company quietly confirmed on X that it has made its ride-hailing service available to some employees.

“FSD Supervised ride-hailing service is live for an early set of employees in Austin & San Francisco Bay Area,” read the post. Those cities are both very important for Tesla as the brand has facilities in each. A short video posted along with the announcement tells us a bit more about how it works.

More: Canadian Dealers Want To Blow Up Border Rules And Import Cool Cars Americans Can’t Buy

A rideshare app allows users to click a big button that simply says “Pick Me Up.” Once the car arrives, users get a notification and a reminder to buckle up in the car. Cybertruck-styled font shows a new script that calls the service “Robotaxi.” The video seems to indicate that, for now, a human safety driver is in the driver’s seat during the testing.

Once in the car, it appears riders get a message on the rear-seat infotainment system to confirm their name, address, and arrival time. Riders click a button in the car that says “Start Ride,” and off goes the car. According to Tesla, it’s already completed 1.5k trips and 15k miles of driving.

FSD Supervised ride-hailing service is live for an early set of employees in Austin & San Francisco Bay Area.

We've completed over 1.5k trips & 15k miles of driving.

This service helps us develop & validate FSD networks, the mobile app, vehicle allocation, mission control &… pic.twitter.com/pYVfhi935W

— Tesla AI (@Tesla_AI) April 23, 2025

Interestingly, the Robotaxi nomenclature helps us understand an important point. The Cybercab refers to the vehicle, and Robotaxi is a service that can leverage more of Tesla’s models. No doubt, they’ll share software and functionality to a degree.

Perhaps the biggest surprise here isn’t that this is happening but that it’s seemingly on time. Elon Musk has famously been overly optimistic about true Level 5 driving tech. This time, it seems like his promise that a paid version of this service will go live in June could end up coming true. Even then, though, we expect a full-scale rollout to take a good long while. 

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Ever wondered why you can’t just go to a store and buy a new car? Why must you haggle at a dealership?

You can find the reason in state law. In Wisconsin, auto manufacturers are prohibited from selling directly to consumers. Instead, they must sell their vehicles to dealerships, which then sell them to the public.

The state’s nearly 35-year-old, explicit ban on direct sales has ignited an ongoing legal dispute between the state and Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.

But Wisconsin isn’t an outlier.

Seventeen states bar direct sales, while 18 states allow them, according to a 2020-2021 report from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Laws in the remaining states fall somewhere in the middle of this balance.

The Wisconsin law at the center of the Tesla dispute says “A factory shall not, directly or indirectly, hold an ownership interest in or operate or control a motor vehicle dealership in this state.”

Industry and legislative history

The Wisconsin State Legislature enacted the factory store rule in 1993 after the Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association lobbied to expand protections for car dealers, said Madeline Kasper, an analyst with the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, in an email.

But restrictions on manufacturers operating auto dealerships in Wisconsin date back to the mid-20th century and were first enacted to protect dealerships from having to compete with auto manufacturers, Kasper said.

The practice of selling new vehicles through dealerships began as the auto industry expanded in the early 20th century. Manufacturers partnered with independent dealers so they could prioritize and invest in the production of cars rather than their distribution.

Before states intervened on behalf of dealerships, manufacturers could force dealers to accept cars regardless of whether the dealer wanted them and could terminate contracts with dealerships for no reason, wrote Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan who teaches legislation and regulation, in a 2016 paper.

Prohibiting manufacturers from selling directly to consumers was meant to limit manufacturers’ ability to unfairly compete by selling the same types of cars sold by the dealer, Crane said.

Tesla has attacked the current interpretation of the factory store rule, noting that Tesla can’t compete with dealerships because dealerships don’t sell Tesla products.

“That rationale is completely inapplicable to non-franchising manufacturers, like Tesla, who have no franchisees they could possibly exploit,” the company wrote in its court filings.

The suit may end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which made Musk’s heavy involvement in the recent election for an open seat on the court — he unsuccessfully spent about $20 million trying to get the right-leaning candidate elected — eye-raising.

The state-imposed limits on direct sales began to loosen in 2014, two years after Tesla debuted its second car, Crane explained in another paper.

Looser restrictions on sales are essential for electric vehicles to compete with the better-established auto companies, and the traditional dealership model is ill-suited to their sale and service, Crane argues.

New car dealerships’ contribution to state tax revenue isn’t insignificant, however. 

The tax revenue from the sale of vehicles both new and traded-in as well as parts, accessories and repairs at new car dealerships in Wisconsin was nearly $600 million in 2024, according to the Department of Revenue. This accounted for nearly 8% of the state’s $7.6 billion in total sales tax revenue last year.

Tesla and Wisconsin 

In Wisconsin, Tesla operates two galleries in Madison and Milwaukee, but neither can sell vehicles or even discuss pricing or promotions. Wisconsin residents who wish to purchase a Tesla must do so online or visit a neighboring state that doesn’t impose direct sales restrictions.  

In December, Tesla requested dealer licenses in Dane and Milwaukee counties, hoping to convert its two gallery locations to dealerships. 

When a state agency rejected the requests, the company filed suit on Jan. 15 in Outagamie County Circuit Court, raising questions of judge shopping.

The company said that it is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in 30 states and Washington, D.C., and that Wisconsin residents purchased between 3,000 and 4,000 of its vehicles last year.

The company prioritizes direct sales, saying that the model is better for its consumers, who, the company says, prefer its uniform prices and “middleman-free experience.” 

Tesla argues that it qualifies for an exemption to state law because car dealers could not own and operate a dealership selling Tesla products “in a manner consistent with the public interest and that meets the reasonable standard and uniformly applied qualifications of the factory.”

After initially filing in Outagamie County, where no Tesla showroom exists, the court transferred the case to Milwaukee County in March, according to online records.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin bans auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. Here’s why. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

After a lackluster first quarter, where Tesla’s global sales took a nosedive, the EV giant has now reported its earnings for the same period. And, unsurprisingly, the results aren’t impressive. Revenue fell short of where it was expected to be by analysts, not just because of sluggish sales, but also due to uncertainty across industries and challenges in global supply chains.

But not everything is doom and gloom for Tesla, there’s some good news tucked in there, too. The company insists it’s on the cusp of launching more affordable models.

More: VW Finally Beats Tesla In EV Sales Across Europe

Let’s start with the figures. In Q1, Tesla’s total revenue fell to $19.3 billion, a 9.4% decline from $21.3 billion in Q1 2024. When compared to Q2, Q3, and Q4 of last year, the drop is even more significant, with revenue sitting at $25.5 billion, $25.1 billion, and $25.7 billion, respectively. Even worse was Tesla’s automotive revenue, which dropped from $17.3 billion in Q1 2024 to $13.9 billion this quarter, a 19.6% decline, and peaked at $20 billion in Q3 2024, a 30.5% decrease from that high.

Declining revenue isn’t the only thing that could concern shareholders of the EV brand.T otal income plummeted by 71%, dropping to $409 million, down from $1.39 billion in Q1 2024 and $2.1 billion in Q4 2024.

Why Did This Happen?

Tesla has blamed its decline in revenue on the obvious drop-off in deliveries during the first quarter. As we reported earlier this month, Tesla delivered 336,681 vehicles, down 13 percent from the year prior. It says deliveries fell in part because it was updating its four factories to start building the new Model Y. Tesla also says average vehicle selling prices dropped last quarter.

“Uncertainty in the automotive and energy markets continues to increase as rapidly evolving trade policy adversely impacts the global supply chain and cost structure of Tesla and our peers,” Tesla said. “This dynamic, along with changing political sentiment, could have a meaningful impact on demand for our products in the near-term. We remain committed to expanding our business model to include delivering autonomous robots across multiple form factors and use cases – powered by our real-world AI expertise – to our customers and for use in our factories, as we navigate these headwinds.”

New, More Affordable Models Are Coming

Falling revenue and deliveries don’t make for pretty reading, but Tesla does have some interesting things around the corner. New production vehicles, including more affordable models, will start in the first half of 2025, echoing a statement Tesla made in January and contrary to recent reports of these new models being delayed.

Read: Tesla Reportedly Delays Cheaper Smaller Model Y, Plans Stripped-Down Model 3

Details about these affordable versions are limited, with some suggesting they’ll be stripped down versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. Tesla says they will “utilize aspects of the next generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms and will be produced on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle lineup.”

Elsewhere, Tesla announced that production of the Cybercab is scheduled to begin in 2026. The company also shared that the next-generation Roadster has moved from the “development” phase to “design development,” though it has yet to provide any details on when it will actually launch. Just a reminder: it’s been 7.5 years since the Roadster was first revealed.

Musk Winding Down DOGE Work

Finally, in news that may actually make some shareholders breathe a sigh of relief, Elon Musk will start scaling back his involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Starting next month, Musk will devote more of his attention to Tesla, where he’s needed most. Perhaps this will bring more stability, though, knowing Musk, expect a few distractions along the way.

After reporting its first-ever decline in annual deliveries last year, Tesla is bracing for another disappointing year. Analysts attribute the waning demand to a wide range of issues, including damage to the brand caused by CEO Elon Musk’s newfound role within the U.S. Government. Overseas, growing competition, particularly within China (Tesla’s second-largest market), is also cited as a concern, as is the company’s ageing lineup.

More: Tesla Plans Smaller Model Y That’s 20% Cheaper To Produce

Fans and investors have been hoping for some relief, with the lower-priced Tesla Model Y “Juniper” variants expected to boost sales. More importantly, H1many were anticipating the launch of Tesla’s most affordable EV yet. Inside sources suggest that this model will be a smaller, stripped-down version of the current Model Y, codenamed E41,that will be at least 20% cheaper to produce.

Delay and New Timeline

Tesla had initially stated that it would release and begin production of the cheaper new model in the first half of 2025, with a separate Reuters report later suggesting mass production would accelerate in early 2026. However, it’s now being reported that the launch has been delayed.

According to inside sources cited by Reuters, the “cheaper Model Y” has been delayed by several months, though the reasons remain unclear. The same three sources also informed the outlet that the initial rollout will focus on U.S. customers, with a production goal of 250,000 cars to be manufactured in the United States using existing Model Y production lines.

The Chinese launch of the E41 is noew expected to commence later in 2026, with plans for European production also being considered, although a precise timeline has not been announced. The new car is expected to be around 20 percent cheaper to manufacture than the best-selling Model Y.

Bare-Bones Model 3 Incoming

Additionally, plans are underway to introduce a stripped-down Model 3 to the market as well. While details are still unclear, this more basic version will likely be based on the rear-wheel-drive model.

To further reduce costs, Tesla will almost certainly need to cut features, such as replacing leatherette ventilated seats with cloth versions (something already done in Mexico) along with using fewer speakers and other cost-cutting measures, similar to the new base version of the Cybertruck. If Tesla really goes all-in, it might even reduce the battery size, though that would impact range.

The $25,000 “Model 2” Scrapped

However, neither of these new cars will be the $25,000 “Model 2” EV that Elon Musk had promised as far back as 2018. Plans for a low-cost, entry-level EV from Tesla were scrapped in favor of the autonomous RoboTaxi, with Musk stating on an earnings call last year that having a regular $25,000 model would be pointless.

More: A $25,000 Tesla Model 2 Could Hit The Sweet Spot For EV Buyers

The cheaper E41 will still have to overcome the 25 percent tariffs imposed on auto parts. To counteract the levies, Tesla has reportedly increased North American sourcing of parts, which will decrease the E41’s exposure to the ongoing supply chain volatility.

Note: The lead image is a digitally altered version of the current Model Y

The trade war between the US and China has escalated pretty quickly, with Donald Trump increasing tariffs on goods imported from the People’s Republic to 145% and the latter retaliating last Friday with a 125% tax on US products. This trade war has negatively affected many companies worldwide, including that of the Department of Government Efficiency’s co-head.

Elon Musk warned Trump that the tariffs would seriously impact the economy, but the President stuck to his guns. Now, Tesla has stopped taking orders for the US-built Model S sedan and Model X SUV in China, replacing the “order now” button with “look at the car” and “schedule a test drive” on its local website.

Locally Made Model 3 And Y Are The Real Sellers Anyway

This means that Tesla still has some cars to sell, since it offers test drives to potential customers. The brand’s reasoning is sound: the two models became prohibitively expensive due to the tariffs and it can’t afford to increase its prices accordingly, especially as the Model S is getting long in the tooth, dating back to 2012 (although it has been updated a few times in all those years) and the Model X never being a strong seller.

More: We Compare The 2026 Tesla Model Y Side-By-Side With Its Predecessor

Instead, it relies on the Model 3 and Model Y, which were revamped in 2023 in China (2024 for North America) and late 2024 respectively, for its presence in the world’s biggest car market. The fact that it manufactures both at its Shanghai plant helps it avoid the huge tariffs on US imports but, as the Wall Street Journal points out, the tariffs only exacerbate its issues.

Musk’s Insults Against Trump’s Advisor Won’t Help Tesla

According to a 2023 analysis by Nikkei Asia, nearly 40% of its vehicles’ battery materials come from Chinese companies. That’s a big no-no for the Trump administration that imposed those incredibly high taxes to make imports all but impossible. It’s a much bigger issue for Musk, though, who has publicly attacked Trump’s top tariff advisor, Peter Navarro, stating he’s “dumber than a sack of bricks” after the latter dismissed Tesla’s CEO plea for a no-tariff agreement between the US and Europe and called him “a car assembler” who just wants to have access to cheap parts made overseas.

More: US EV Sales Jump In Q1, But The Biggest Losers Might Surprise You

“The difference is in our thinking and Elon’s on this is that we want the tires made in Akron,” Navarro said. “We want the transmissions made in Indianapolis. We want the engines made in Flint and Saginaw, and we want the cars manufactured here.” Teslas don’t have engines, but that’s a technicality; his attitude towards the matter is clear. Never one willing to turn the other cheek, Musk replied that “Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false.”

Protecting American Jobs While Hurting Tesla? That’s Fresh

Either man can be right or wrong, depending on where you stand on the issue. Musk needs access to cheap parts in order to keep Tesla’s pricing as competitive as possible and can’t realistically find US-based suppliers in such a short timeframe, assuming there are enough to go around for every carmaker trying to do the same. Navarro, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to care for Tesla’s sales or profits and simply wants to enforce Trump’s policy and ban China-made products out of the US – period.

More: Detroit Is Begging Trump To Stop As His Import Tariffs Threaten Thousands Of Auto Jobs

The President’s tariffs are meant to protect US companies and jobs by forcing everyone to make the products they sell in the States locally. Which is swell, but for one detail: Tesla builds the most American cars in the country and hurting it might result in job losses, so the part about protecting jobs is, in that sense, an oxymoron.

Even Before Tariffs, Tesla Was Going Through A Rough Time

Irrespective of Musk and Navarro’s insults, Tesla already has a lot of issues. At home, it might still be the EV market leader but rivals have steadily eating into its share, its stock price has plunged by 34% since January, and 67% of Americans surveyed said they wouldn’t even consider buying a Tesla, mostly due to Musk’s politics. Thing are worse overseas. Its European sales have tanked despite the launch of the improved Model Y Juniper, and as for China, axing the Model S and X are the least of its problems because buyers increasingly prefer cars by local brands to the expense of foreigners, even the likes of Mercedes, Porsche, and, of course, Tesla.

Being the richest man in the world must be nice. If it comes with all that baggage, though, Musk may come to regret getting involved in politics, even though going all MAGA made him the first person in history whose net worth exceeded the $400 billion mark. He might quit DOGE and remain an informal advisor as reported, but we suspect that won’t change public opinion or, worse, solve Tesla’s problems. What a predicament.

Public opinion on Elon Musk isn’t exactly glowing these days, and that discontent isn’t limited to the United States. Across the Atlantic in the UK, backlash against Tesla and its high-profile CEO has been gaining steam.

Most recently, a group calling itself “Everyone Hates Elon” organized an event where a 2014 Tesla Model S was systematically destroyed in what they described as both a protest and a live art installation. The display was part of a broader campaign against Musk, which has been growing in visibility.

Read: Trump’s Commerce Secretary Said Tesla Stock Would Never Be This Cheap, The Market Called His Bluff

The black Model S was provided by an anonymous donor and placed at Hardess Studios in south London. Participants then vented their frustrations by smashing the electric sedan with sledgehammers and baseball bats. What started as a perfectly good Tesla ended up as one where every single body panel has been destroyed, and it looks like it’s been involved in a devastating crash.

The Everyone Hates Elon group appears to have gained traction through social media and has attracted attention with provocative materials, including stickers that read, “Don’t buy a Swasticar.”

Among those participating was Alice Rogers, a researcher from Illinois currently working at the University of Cambridge. She said the protest offered an outlet for frustration over what she sees happening back in the US.

“Musk is acting in ways which violate our constitution. I’m very concerned by what I’m seeing – he’s gutting agencies and cutting USAID,” she told The Guardian. Another participant, 32-year-old Giles Pearson, pinpointed Musk’s rightwing politics as the reason why he wanted to wreck the Model S.

Anti-Musk Actions Escalate in the UK

The campaign against Musk has intensified across the UK, with guerrilla-style messaging appearing in public spaces. Fake advertisements have popped up at bus stops with slogans like, “Autopilot for your car. Autocrat for your country”, “Now With White Power Steering,” and “The Fast and the Führer.”

The New York Times reports that several anti-Musk groups have popped up across Europe, many of them sharing the dual aim of damaging Tesla’s brand and sinking its stock value. Some are explicitly focused on disrupting sales and targeting the company’s public image.

“There’s never been a target exactly like this,” John Gorenfeld from the ‘Takedown Tesla’ group said. “Nobody who is that rich and powerful has behaved that outrageously. There’s something campy and ridiculous about Musk’s brand of toxicity. And it opens up a real space to ridicule.”

Screenshot Wion via YouTube

Here are three things you probably already know but, in light of what will follow, are worth repeating. First, Tesla is not your average car company. Second, the Cybertruck is as far removed from your average truck as can be. And third, Elon Musk is definitely not your average CEO, seems to have an opinion about everything, and makes sure that it’s heard. Loud and clear.

Tesla’s success story and how it managed to disrupt the automotive industry has been told so many times that we won’t bore you with it. The Cybertruck, though, is worth exploring because it’s a relatively new product and was touted as the truck to end all trucks, electric or not. So, did it?

More: Vandals Attack 5 Cybertrucks At Shopping Mall Triggering Police Hunt

When it comes to publicity, the answer is a resounding “yes”. Hardly a day goes by without a story (or five) involving Tesla’s angular pickup truck, whether it be how ugly divisive its looks are, how its frame snaps in a YouTuber’s test while an old Ram’s doesn’t, the time a terrorist chose one to detonate an explosive device outside a Trump Hotel, and so on and so forth.

The Hype Is Still On, But Sales Are Falling

But first, let’s take a small trip down memory lane to October 2023. A month before the Cybertruck’s launch, Musk boasted that Tesla had already received “over 1 million reservations” and demand for the unconventional truck was “off the charts”. Of course, you could make a reservation for a refundable $100 (later raised to $250) deposit, but that was a minor detail…

Naturally, no one, not even Musk himself, expected all those reservations to translate into actual orders. In fact, Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights for Cox Automotive, told Wired that “The automotive industry aims for a conversion rate of around 2 to 16 percent”. Since a couple of weeks ago Tesla revealed, as part of a recall campaign, that it has delivered 46,096 Cybertrucks from November 13, 2023, to February 27, 2025, it represents a conversion rate of less than 5 percent. That’s within the aforementioned range, but not exactly music to Musk’s, or Tesla fanboys’, ears.

While nobody would dare accuse the world’s richest man of making misleading statements (except, maybe, the “crooked” SEC), 46,000 sales do not indicate that demand is “off the charts”. Granted, initially it was the new shiny toy everyone who’s someone had to have, and in the first half of 2024 the Cybertruck was America’s sales leader in the six-figure-priced car club. However, compared to the sub-$100k one, which is most carmakers’ that aren’t called Ferrari, Bentley, Aston Martin or Lamborghini, bread and butter, it’s quite an exclusive club, wouldn’t you agree?

Model Y Production Is Prioritized Over That Of The Cybertruck

In early January, Business Insider reported that, according to its sources, declining sales led to Tesla moving some of its workers in the Austin plant from the Cybertruck to the Model Y production line. The company told its workers in a survey where it asked them about their reassignments that “As we continue to assess schedules to meet business needs, we’ll be making a change to Model Y and Cyber schedules and we want to ensure that your preferences are considered”.

More: Musk Could Soon Leave Trump’s Administration, But The Drama May Still Follow Tesla

Two workers said that this was an unusual move as such changes are only implemented for new vehicles. Then again, maybe the brand considers the Model Y Juniper an all-new model, so this was justified. After all, the Model Y is Tesla’s bread and butter product – and an extremely successful one, at least until last year when sales dropped sharply. But that was natural as everyone knew the updated Juniper was soon coming our way, so they probably decided to wait a few months rather than buy the “old” model.

Forget Tesla And Sales, Let’s Talk About Robots Instead

As we’ve come to expect, though, the really hot stuff usually comes not from the company or its products, but from its head honcho who’s not afraid to speak his mind – and then some – at any given opportunity. Never mind the Cybertruck’s performance or Tesla’s rapidly declining sales; at a staff meeting on March 20, Musk focused on a non-automotive product: Optimus.

“This year, we hopefully will be able to make about 5,000 Optimus robots,” he declared. “That’s the size of a Roman legion. Which is like a scary thought. Like a whole legion of robots. I’ll be like, ‘whoa.’” Then he upped that target by stating that Tesla will make “probably 50,000-ish [Optimus robots] next year” (so, 10 legions), and subsequently corrected himself, saying that his company would actually make “maybe 100 million robots a year”.

Veni, Vidi, Vici – And Then, What?

Now, I don’t care to do the math, I don’t know whether Musk’s promises will turn out to be true (though he does have a less that perfect track record on that) and, last time I checked, I don’t have an BA in History. I’m no gambler either, but I’m willing to bet not even Julius Caesar had that many legions at his disposal when he crossed the Rubicon to march towards Rome.

After emerging victorious in the ensuing civil war, he was declared dictator perpetuo – that’s “dictator for life” in Latin – in January, 44 BC. Little did the great general know how short-lived that title would turn out to be; he was assassinated two months later, in March.

Well, the only sure thing is life is death (and taxes…), so it all boils down on how you wanna be remembered. Julius Ceasar, apart from his conquests, is also famous about his one-liners – even the one uttered while he was being stabbed to death (“You as well, Brutus?”). I believe Elon Musk will also go down in history, though I can’t predict for what. Perhaps you care to speculate in the comments?