Connect with us

Business

Tesla investor presses board address Elon Musk’s politics and their impact on the EV maker’s business

Published

on



An individual investor and longtime climate-change advocate is asking the Tesla board to finally address the impact of politics on the $1 trillion electric vehicle and robotics manufacturer—by just staying out of it. 

Jay Butera, 67, of Pennsylvania, submitted a shareholder proposal to the board asking Tesla to adopt a policy of political neutrality that would prohibit executives and company leaders from making statements, endorsements, contributions and taking other visible actions in support or opposition to political parties or candidates. Butera, a retired entrepreneur, is deeply passionate about renewable energy and founded the bipartisan climate solutions caucus in 2016. He’s also been an investor in Tesla since the company’s IPO in 2010. In his view, Tesla’s mission of widespread electric transportation and deployment of renewable energy sources is of paramount importance. Butera doesn’t want to see “the day-to-day politics of mankind get in the way of that.”

Butera’s plight as a Tesla owner and supporter at odds with the impact of Musk’s high profile in politics has been raised repeatedly by the electric vehicle manufacturer’s legion of retail investors. His proposal is the first time the Tesla board has had to directly respond to the query and it comes as Tesla faces increasing pressure on sales and innovation amid a slowdown in consumer spending.

“Elon Musk is a technical genius and I believe his enthusiasm and passion have enabled him to do things that no one else could do, so it’s not surprising that his interest in politics was larger than life,” said Butera. “It’s that kind of passion and energy and enthusiasm that drove him to create Tesla and to make Tesla do what no other company has been able to do—create practical electric transportation.”

But that same zeal, directed at politics, is jeopardizing the world’s transition to sustainable energy, Butera said, and Tesla’s investors. 

“We can’t afford to do anything at any level in the company that alienates customers, alienates government officials, or alienates regulators, whether it’s here or abroad,” he said. 

Butera first reached out to the board in October 2024 with a letter outlining his concerns and never got a response, which surprised him because at the time he owned about $8 million worth of Tesla stock, he said. Butera has since sold off about half the investment after holding onto it for 15 years because he was concerned about the impact of political activity on the company and thought Tesla was overrepresented in his investment portfolio. 

“It just stands to reason that if you make political statements in one direction or another, you’re going to offend somebody,” Butera told Fortune. “For that reason, I’m a big advocate of neutrality for people who are in the public eye.”

His proposal does not mention Tesla’s CEO by name, but Musk has hardly been neutral. He spent north of $250 million backing a super PAC he created to mobilize support for President Donald Trump and he was the face of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The latter was behind thousands of unpopular federal job cuts and slashed millions in federal funding.

Tesla board pushes back

Tesla board members, chaired by Robyn Denholm, are seeking to omit the proposal, which would mean it won’t appear on the company’s final proxy statement and Tesla shareholders won’t get to vote on it at the annual meeting in November. 

The Tesla board wrote that the proposed neutrality policy “would not only have a chilling effect on free speech, but could also be both impossible and unlawful for the board to implement and enforce.”

“This would place the Board in an unworkable situation to constantly monitor and analyze an undefined category of statements made by the Company’s directors and high-ranking officers in their personal capacities using non-Company platforms,” board members said in an opposition statement. “The Board neither has the ability to enforce nor should it be placed in a position to be constantly interpreting these sweeping, nebulous and rapidly shifting standards.”

The board recommended investors vote against the proposal, and its request to strike the proposal entirely to the Securities & Exchange Commission remains pending. 

Rising concerns from Tesla investors

While Butera submitted the shareholder proposal in his capacity as an individual investor in the company, he is hardly alone. Retail investors holding thousands of Tesla shares have upvoted questions every quarter since 2024 asking about Musk’s involvement in politics and begging the board to rein him in.

“Elon the person has freedom of speech. The brand ambassador of Tesla does not,” wrote one investor before the last earnings call in July. “What is the board doing to distance Tesla from the private actions of its CEO?”

“Boycotts, protests, vandalism, negative headlines, and a stock slide have been sparked by Elon Musk’s participation in changes to U.S. gov’t services & employment,” wrote another investor in April. “Is the Tesla board discussing whether their CEO should focus fully on Tesla and leave gov’t to elected politicians?”

Similar Musk-focused queries rolled into the platform Tesla uses to solicit questions from its army of retail investors in advance of quarterly earnings calls in January, October 2024, and July 2024. 

Consumers in blue states are cooling on Tesla

In heavily Democratic-leaning California, which Musk has left in favor of Texas, the hit on Tesla sales has been deep. For the past seven straight quarters, new registrations for Teslas have declined in California, where the share of electric vehicles is overly represented relative to rest of the U.S., according to data from Experian. The state’s share of zero electric vehicle registrations is 28.6%, and the market share is 19.5%. In comparison, the U.S. market share of the vehicles is 7.8%.

California registrations of Teslas dropped 18% during the first half of 2025, compared to the first half of 2024, according to quarterly figures published in July by the California New Car Dealers Association. Meanwhile, hybrid registrations increased 54% in California the first half of the year. Tesla’s Model Y and Model 3 remain the top 2 selling cars in California, despite the declines. 

As of August 2025, the share of registered voters in California was 45.3%, while the share of Republicans was 25.2%, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

A 2024 study authored by a University of Chicago Booth School of Business assistant professor of economics that analyzed 117 major corporate political stance events found that when companies take controversial positions perceived to be political, they get a response from consumers. 

Consuming Values,” written by Jacob Conway and Levi Boxell, found that when a quarter of consumers are aware of a firm’s political position on an issue, those aligned with the position increased their consumption by 19% the following month. Consumers opposed to the stance decreased their spending by 11%, the study found. 

Making political statements is “certainly very fraught in the sense that there is now good academic evidence that taking stances certainly affects customer demand for your product,” said William Cassidy, an assistant professor of finance at Washington University’s Olin Business School. 

The research also found that the consumption differences persisted even a year after a firm took a political stance on an issue.

Butera said he has friends who won’t buy Teslas because of Musk’s politics and has others who have sold their Teslas. As an investor and climate-change advocate, he finds that trend alarming.

Before he submitted his proposal, he researched Tesla’s Code of Business Ethics, which asks employees to avoid conflicts of interest that “interfere, or appear to interfere, with Tesla’s interests.” His proposal asks the board to incorporate statements that deem political activities by leaders as conflicting with Tesla’s interests. He said the proposal isn’t meant to criticize, penalize, or embarrass anyone at the company.

“I’m just asking the board to acknowledge the risks of political activity, to learn from its mistakes, make necessary adjustments in governance, and to move forward toward Tesla’s stated goal of ‘Accelerating the Transition to Sustainable Energy,’” said Butera. “Tesla’s success in this mission is important to the world—more important than the personal political opinions of any one person. I would hope that Tesla’s Board would have the same mindset.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’

Published

on



While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes. 

“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated

“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”

So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.

The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.

The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”

“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.

Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous 

As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence. 

“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance. 

Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through. 

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”

Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise 

There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium. 

In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide. 

While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve. 

Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump fast tracks ‘three-week’ nuclear approval for big tech to fuel AI race

Published

on



President Donald Trump offered Silicon Valley an extraordinary deal on Wednesday: Build your own nuclear power plants to fuel AI, and his administration will approve them in just three weeks.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump addressed a room of tech executives struggling with an aging U.S. electrical grid.

“I came up with the idea,” Trump said. “You people are brilliant. You have a lot of money. You can build your own electric generating plants.”

Trump talked for about 10 minutes about energy in his speech, making it clear Trump views a straining electric grid as a central economic risk of 2026. As artificial intelligence pushes electricity demand to record highs, the administration is framing power shortages as an existential threat to growth and national security. Slashing approval timelines, Trump argued, is a necessary response to an energy system he said he believes is fundamentally unprepared for the AI era.

“We needed more than double the energy currently in the country just to take care of the AI plants,” Trump said. 

The proposal marks a radical departure from the traditional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) process, which historically requires four to five years for environmental and design approvals as well as rigorous site selection. Trump claimed that while tech leaders initially “didn’t believe him,” he assured them the government would deliver approvals for oil and gas plants in just two weeks, with nuclear projects following in three.

Trump said he wasn’t “a big fan” of nuclear power before, but now sees it as a newly viable solution due to safety improvements. 

“The progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable,” he said. “We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe.” 

While the potential upcoming wave of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) could receive regulatory approvals in less than two years, there is little basis for going through an approval process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in closer to three weeks, and such an expedited process would trigger widespread concerns about safety and environmental risks.

Trump also touted a new energy alliance with Venezuela, noting the U.S. secured 50 million barrels of oil last week following the “end of an attack” on the nation that led to the deposition of President Nicolás Maduro. He said the new cooperation between the two nations would make Venezuela “fantastically well” while driving U.S. gasoline prices toward $2.00 a gallon.

Gasoline prices are the main inflationary measure by which costs have fallen during the first year of the new Trump administration. But they’re nowhere close to $2.00 per gallon. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is $2.76 per gallon this week, down 32 cents from a year ago, primarily because of rising OPEC oil production.

But Trump drew a sharp contrast with Europe’s energy landscape. Trump mocked the “Green New Scam,” citing a 64% spike in German electricity prices and the “catastrophic” decline of energy production in the United Kingdom. He targeted the North Sea and the proliferation of wind farms, which he labeled “losers” that “kill the birds.”

“Stupid people buy” wind farms, Trump laughed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Slipping on ICE: innocent retailers are the latest collateral damage from Trump’s perpetual noise machine

Published

on



In her classic 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, pioneering urbanologist Jane Jacobs advised that the key to safe cities is “more eyes on the street.”  She advocated that the best way to get these was to have neighborhoods filled with stores and restaurants. With local business providing a multitude of reasons for people to be active in city street life, eyes on the street would follow. It was these eyes that were mentioned by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his January 14 primetime media appeal for the public to witness and document the increasingly horrific actions of the agency known as ICE, the once celebrated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

Increasingly known for daily video footage of seemingly arbitrary and brutal force, used by masked ICE agents against shoppers and workers at retail shops and restaurants, Walz urged shoppers to “take out that phone and hit record.” The public has been horrified by the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed 37-year-old mother of three and an American citizen, who was shot multiple times in the face by an ICE agent in her own Minneapolis neighborhood. But the footage of ICE brutality is everywhere, and much of it is occurring in retail establishments.

Consider the vivid hypocrisy of the ICE agents who were seen feasting at the popular El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant in Willmar, Minnesota, and then returning later to arrest the owner and employees of this café that had graciously served them. ICE actions have led several local establishments to close for foot traffic, taking only phone orders, while others reported sales drops of 75%. 

As for larger enterprises, with recent raids occurring in Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Phoenix, Fortune 500 giants around the nation including  Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Ross, Keurig Dr Pepper, and Constellation Brands have all increasingly warned about the impact of ICE raids on their businesses. Patrons and laborers at one Walmart in Van Nuys, California, faced multiple raids in the same day with people tackled and dragged away from ICE agents. Calls for boycotts of retailers who aid and abet ICE enforcement are understandable but retailers are also victims here. They can and should do more to make their roles more clear.

The eyes on the street

The impact of such ICE invasions into Minnesota is being shared nationally, with profound cost to local commerce and also local communities. Local merchants serve a deeper purpose to society than selling goods that are often available through ecommerce. Retail stores are among the last remaining shared civic spaces—places where people of all backgrounds still cross paths in the course of everyday life. Shopkeepers are community pillars because they build social ties, foster local identity, boost the economy by keeping money local, and act as hubs for connection, often providing personalized service and supporting local events, making neighborhoods more vibrant, resilient, and unique places to live and shop. They transform basic commerce into meaningful relationships and community gathering spots, strengthening the social fabric. 

America’s great retailers have long understood this. From Walmart’s Sam Walton to J.C. Penney to The Home Depot co-founders Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, retail legends have long described stores not merely as institutions of public trust. Blank has spoken of retail as a civic platform—a space where people from different walks of life come together in ordinary, human ways. Marcus has emphasized that Home Depot was built on dignity: respect for customers, respect for workers, and a belief that welcoming people into shared spaces strengthens communities rather than fragments them.

So, what could possibly disrupt that vision?

Last week, videos ricocheted across social media showing federal immigration agents restraining a man inside a Walmart in Minnesota and detaining individuals at the entrance of a Target. Days later, in Los Angeles, Home Depot parking lots—long informal hiring sites for day laborers—again became flashpoints for enforcement actions and community backlash. These were just a few of many ICE raids playing out across the country, in locales as varied as New York, Georgia, Texas and beyond, where shoppers have reported increased immigration enforcement activity near department stores and shopping centers, triggering protests, boycotts, and a growing sense that retail spaces are being repurposed into stages for public confrontation. 

This is surely not the retail experience that Marcus and Blank had in mind when they spoke of dignity and friendly community commons.

President Donald Trump is likely pulling this lever unprovoked to tear apart communities’ harmonious fabric as the kind of diversionary tactic that he often utilizes. Trump’s first year has been soundly rated a failure in all major national polls and in each dimension of national and international priorities.  Barely 37% say that Trump places the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. As we write about in our new book, Trump’s Ten Commandments, the president has long resorted to “perpetual noise machine” distractions when faced with plummeting poll numbers and challenges on the economy and affordability, seeking to divert attention away from his difficulties. This diversion comes at a real cost to retailers and to the American economy.

Multiple major national polls reveal that the ICE mission is failing, with most Americans condemning these raids as making American cities less safe — with 82% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents leaning in this direction, but also 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Even MAGA-friendly podcaster Joe Rogan launched a harsh takedown of ICE, likening them to the Gestapo secret police of Nazi Germany.

In fact, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, recently showed on Fox TV that, before the ICE invasions, all major categories of crime including violent crimes like murders and carjacks were down last year from 20% to 50%. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has shown this weekend that there has been no surge of undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis to justify what is now five times the number of federal law enforcement officers as there are municipal police.

It appears that even Trump is recoiling, offering a surprising criticism of ICE overreach in a New York Times interview this week. Indeed, unless there is some inexplicable policy goal to get Americans to buy ladders, hammers, toilet seats, piles of bricks, washers, dryers, and garage doors online instead of at neighborhood stores, there is no reason why retailers need to become ground zero.

Why would ICE want to hurt businesses that form the backbone of the American economy? After all, we don’t know how good UPS is at delivering garage doors house-to-house, or if FedEx could really handle deliveries of bricks, sinks, and toilets, if they were bought from Amazon instead of from neighborhood stores. While that notion might seem ridiculous, there is nothing funny or ludicrous about the fact that these administration/ICE overreaches risk serious and genuine economic damage if they continue unabated.

The facts about retailers’ lack of complicity

While ICE might be slipping on the ice, the activists who are attacking America’s most beloved retailers as somehow “complicit” with ICE raids in their stores are similarly slipping up. That narrative is wrong, and retailers need to throw rock salt urgently, to avoid flipping over themselves. Here are the facts, which are too often lost in the crossfire, and should be clarified urgently.

First, retailers need to clarify that they have not been complicit and have had no advance knowledge of these raids. Retailers are not accessories with ICE, nor enablers; they are also victims, caught in the crossfire of a political and legal dispute they did not choose.

This clarification is urgent, because critics on all sides misrepresent what retailers can—and cannot—do. One widely circulated myth holds that retailers invite ICE into their stores. In reality, ICE agents, like any law enforcement officers, may enter public spaces open to all customers without needing a warrant.

Another myth suggests that retailers can simply “ban ICE” from their properties if they choose, with some choosing to do so while other stores invite them in with open arms. That, too, misunderstands the law. A retail store is not a private home. As a public-facing space, retailers cannot selectively exclude certain groups—whether law enforcement or anyone else—from areas open to the general public. A store manager cannot “kick out ICE” the way they might remove a shoplifter. Even if a retailer tried to ban ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, from their otherwise public facing spaces, the law enforcement agency could simply ignore it under the law, and the retailer could be subject to a variety of legal claims, including discrimination or obstruction by the affected government entities. Some have suggested that perhaps stores could put whistles by the cash registers or parking lots, but in reality, retailers have no control.

A third myth claims that retailers are facilitating the arrest of their employees or customers. That is false. As Federal law enforcement officers, ICE agents have the authority to make arrests in any public spaces based on probable cause, without the consent—or cooperation—of the venue. While there are allegations that surveillance cameras operated by such retail partners as Flock Safety are being use to assist ICE raids as some activist investors charge,  retailers should assert this electronic collaborating is not true—consistent with denials by Flock Safety.

Retailers did not ask to be put into the middle of America’s political and legal fight over immigration. But they are being drafted nonetheless, and need to scream these facts loudly from the mountaintops to deescalate a worsening situation. Fortunately, they are not likely to use needlessly incendiary language the way some overreacting public officials do. Home Depot’s public statements capture the hard edge of their dilemma: the company has said it is neither notified in advance nor coordinating with immigration enforcement, while also acknowledging that it cannot legally interfere with federal agencies.

Now that retailers find themselves in the middle, they deserve something too often missing from this debate: truth, and they need to be screaming this truth loudly from the mountaintops. They are neither covert Quisling collaborators nor law enforcement-subverting antagonists. They are institutions built to welcome the public of all stripes, not to adjudicate federal policy—and they should not be targeted as such by either side.

Some may wonder, why target retailers? If the goal is to trigger unruly public unrest to justify presidential invocation of the insurrection act as some charge, why not visit the spirited crowds at WWE instead. The average Home Depot store has an impressive 2,000 transactions a day but a WWE slapdown such as Raw or Westlemania easily draws five times as many for 10,000 heated fans. If the goal is to capture foreign guests, why not raid the Metropolitan Opera crowds filled with EU national as performers or the American Ballet Theater or the Colorado Ballet known for their high Russian degree of heritage dancers, or the several hundred heavily promoted high kicking Shen Yun performances each year sponsored by the Chinese Falun Gung religious movement.

It is painful to see ICE arrests taking place in the aisles, parking lots, and entry foyers of Minneapolis stores. Who would have thought that even the raucous reputation of the Minnesota Vikings would look refined compared to the hard-edged, ICE enforcement actions? Perhaps they should drop their cowardly masks to hide their identities by donning Viking helmets with horns to more accurately dress for their retail raids. Regardless of the bias in whatever racial or political agenda may be behind this nightmarish remake of Eugene O’Neil’s dark drama of societal miscreants, The Iceman Cometh, the ICE men are making sure their own approval rating melts, while doing damage to both commerce and community safety.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.