Elon Musk and Tesla have always been more hype than reality, and their fragility is now showing. The emperor has no clothes.
Tesla was built on government welfare.
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
Tesla’s recent sales slump highlights the fragility of a company long propped up by taxpayer subsidies and a cult of personality around Elon Musk. Despite years of preferential treatment—from federal loans and state tax breaks to lucrative emissions-credit sales—Tesla’s global deliveries fell sharply in early 2025 while competitors gained ground, suggesting the emperor’s electric vehicle empire may finally be losing its shine.
- Government welfare: Tesla has received billions in federal loans, state tax incentives, and emissions-credit revenue that masked underlying weaknesses.
- Sales reversal: Global deliveries dropped 13 percent in Q1 2025 even as overall U.S. EV sales grew, eroding Tesla’s once-dominant market share.
- European collapse: First-quarter registrations plunged across the EU, where consumers cite Musk’s political antics and outdated models as turn-offs.
- Investor anxiety: A Morgan Stanley survey found 85 percent of investors view Musk’s political behavior as a threat to Tesla’s fundamentals.
- Subsidy addiction: New factory deals in Texas and elsewhere still rely on multi-million-dollar tax abatements that drain local public services.
A progressive lens sees Tesla’s troubles as a cautionary tale: When public dollars underwrite private profit without demanding labor protections, community benefits, or democratic oversight, the result is predictable—corporate capture of green policy and fragile gains for workers. Redirecting subsidies toward unionized, community-owned clean-tech ventures would build resilient jobs and ensure that the next generation of climate solutions serves people, not billionaires.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Elon Musk has long portrayed Tesla as the triumph of private genius over public inertia, yet the balance sheet of history tells a different story. From its first days, the automaker has leaned heavily on government largesse: a $465 million Department of Energy loan kept the company alive during its precarious infancy. In comparison, state packages such as Nevada’s $1.3 billion tax-break deal for the original Gigafactory showered still more public resources on Musk’s venture. Over two decades, an estimated $38 billion in federal contracts, grants, loans, and state-level incentives have flowed into Musk’s empire—much of it into Tesla itself.
Public generosity did not end once Tesla sold its first Model S. Each quarter, the company books revenue from the sale of regulatory emission credits—a transfer paid for by other carmakers that still produce higher-emission fleets but must comply with federal and state clean-air mandates. Those credits delivered $1.79 billion in 2023 alone and have provided nearly $9 billion since 2009, cushioning Tesla’s bottom line whenever vehicle margins narrow. Instead of acknowledging this lifeline, Musk rails against “hand-outs,” while investors pocket windfalls created by and socialized across U.S. taxpayers.
The company’s once-mythic growth engine is sputtering even as those subsidies pile up. Global deliveries fell 13 percent in the first quarter of 2025, the steepest contraction in nearly three years. The contrast inside the United States could not be sharper. While overall electric-vehicle sales grew 11.4 percent year-over-year, Tesla’s domestic sales slipped 9 percent, handing market share to up-and-coming rivals that now pair competitive pricing with fresher models and unionized labor.
The erosion appears even more dramatic across the Atlantic. In Europe—where climate policy and consumer culture once positioned Tesla as an aspirational badge—sales collapsed 38 percent in the opening quarter of 2025, allowing Volkswagen, propelled by its ID-series lineup, to seize the regional EV crown. Registration data from March underscore the trend: European battery-electric registrations rose 24 percent, yet Tesla’s dropped 28 percent. Danish, German, and French consumers cite not just product fatigue but distaste for Musk’s political belligerence—from his flirtations with authoritarian leaders to his online amplification of extremist memes.
Wall Street has taken notice. In a Morgan Stanley survey, 85 percent of institutional investors said Musk’s political activism now harms Tesla’s fundamentals—a verdict that hints at deeper reputational damage than any supply-chain glitch could inflict. As progressive critics long warned, tying a global clean-energy transition to the temperament of a single billionaire invites precisely this kind of volatility: a carmaker’s fortunes rise and fall not on engineering excellence but on the CEO’s latest culture-war tweet.
Nor has Musk sworn off public cash. Last month, Tesla negotiated new property-tax abatements in Waller County, Texas—tens of millions of dollars in foregone revenue for local schools and services—in exchange for yet another megafactory. That pattern repeats nationwide: municipalities bid away their tax base for the privilege of hosting jobs that often remain non-union and lower-wage than promises implied. Where communities could have demanded durable wage guarantees, community-benefit agreements, or public equity stakes, state officials raced to sweeten Musk’s incentive package.
A progressive lens sees a simple through-line. The public subsidizes risk; private shareholders capture profit; workers and communities absorb the fluctuations of an erratic executive’s brand. Tesla’s faltering performance is not merely a corporate stumble but an indictment of the policy architecture that sustains it. If Washington wishes to accelerate electrification, it can condition subsidies on domestic supply-chain labor standards, set strong procurement targets for publicly owned fleets, and direct investment toward worker-controlled cooperatives that build batteries, chargers, and buses—not just luxury crossovers. Transparent public stakes, revenue-sharing, and a firm wage floor would keep value circulating through local economies rather than funneling upward to the billionaire class.
Meanwhile, regulators must revisit the emissions-credit market that functions as Tesla’s rainy-day fund. Credits should ratchet down automatically as incumbent automakers meet stricter fleet standards, trimming the quasi-welfare flow to Tesla and focusing resources on sectors still hard to electrify—heavy trucking, aviation, and industrial heat. Combined with antitrust scrutiny of Tesla’s growing vertical integrations, these reforms can prevent one company from bottlenecking the nation’s climate strategy.
Tesla’s current slide exposes the hollowness of the hero-entrepreneur myth. Engineers, line workers, battery researchers, and taxpayers collectively produced the real innovation; a CEO merely captured the headlines. Progressive policy would ensure that the next wave of electrification rewards those collective contributors first. Until then, taxpayers keep footing the bill for Musk’s marketing machine—even as the emperor’s shiny EV portfolio looks increasingly threadbare.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
