The demand for Muskโs dismissal arose after the electric vehicle manufacturerโs alarming first-quarter earnings report, which disclosed a 71 percent decline in profits โ a dramatic fall from $1.39 billion in Q1 2024 to merely $409 million in the same timeframe this year.
This significant financial downturn, coupled with perceptions of Muskโs increasingly unpredictable decision-making and divided focus, has sparked what may be the most substantial challenge to his leadership since he assumed control of the company.
The frustration among investors was evident as they processed not only the profit decline but also Muskโs ongoing involvement with the U.S. government through his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during President Donald Trumpโs administration.
In a subsequent call with analysts, Musk asserted that he would dedicate more time to Tesla, claiming that โthe major work of establishing DOGE is completeโ and pledging to reduce his government commitments to merely โa day or two per weekโ starting in May.
However, for many investors, this promise was perceived as insufficient and belated. They believe the damage has already been inflicted, viewing Musk as favoring political theatrics over operational effectiveness.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities characterized Muskโs change in tone as a โstep in the right direction,โ yet others were significantly more critical. Some notable investors contend that Tesla has been functioning on autopilot for months while Musk pursues political and futuristic aspirations โ ranging from AI and space to robotaxis and governmental reforms โ often at the expense of shareholder value and strategic coherence.
They highlight a concerning lack of focus, inconsistent communication, and a troubling propensity to alter objectives. This growing dissatisfaction is exacerbated by Muskโs insistence on prioritizingโฆ
Recent internal evaluations, initially disclosed by The Information, warn that regulatory hurdles, international legal issues, and tepid demand may jeopardize the robotaxi project before it can establish itself. Analysts within the organization have criticized the choice to prioritize the Cybercab over the much-anticipated $25,000 Model 2 electric vehicle as fundamentally misguided.
Sources indicate that the Model 2 would have had greater appeal in emerging markets such as Vietnam, India, and Latin Americaโareas where there is a strong demand for affordable electric vehicles from a prominent brand like Tesla.
However, Musk has reportedly declined to allocate resources to both initiatives at the same time, choosing instead to completely halt the Model 2 project. The repercussions of these strategic errors are now evident in Teslaโs declining stock price, which has dropped over 40 percent since the start of 2025.
Although shares experienced a slight increase of 5 percent in after-hours trading following Muskโs announcement to concentrate more on Tesla, the damage may have already been inflicted. Investors are losing faith not only in Teslaโs strategic direction but also in Muskโs capacity to remain realistic and attuned to market dynamics.
The term most frequently used among disenchanted investors in recent days is โdelusional, detached, and directionlessโโa harsh description that is increasingly appearing in public discourse. Critics contend that Musk has become so absorbed in futuristic narratives and ideological conflicts that he has lost focus on Teslaโs essential business goals.
The once-admired tech visionary now faces allegations of being more concerned with discussions about artificial intelligence, participation in political events, and speculative innovations than with ensuring the stability of Teslaโs core operations.
This perception has been intensified by Muskโs controversial management of DOGE, a government initiative designed to enhance public sector efficiency.
The company that once spearheaded the electric vehicle movement now faces the risk of becoming a cautionary example of overextension, misplaced confidence, and the dangers of reliance on a single individual.
Elon Muskโs unwillingness to delegate responsibilities, realign priorities, or heed internal advice may have reached a critical juncture, with demands for structural reform intensifying daily. Prominent institutional investors are reportedly urging Teslaโs board to engage in discussions regarding a leadership transition.
Some are advocating for Musk to voluntarily step down or transition into a more visionary advisory role, thereby allowing a more focused executive to guide the company through its current challenges. Others are pushing for an urgent shareholder meeting to vote on governance changes, including the potential replacement of Musk as CEO.
The outcome of these initiatives remains uncertain, but it is evident that the narrative of Elon Muskโs invulnerability at Tesla is swiftly disintegrating. Following a significant profit decline and a series of strategic missteps, the individual once celebrated as the visionary behind the electric future is now being portrayed as the architect of Teslaโs current difficulties.
Should Musk fail to act decisively and transparently in the upcoming weeks, the calls for his resignation may transition from mere suggestions to an unavoidable reality. For the first time in Teslaโs history, Elon Musk may not remain in control.
