On a recent Saturday, the landscape of Tesla showrooms across the United States transformed into arenas of dissent, reflecting widespread public discontent directed at Elon Musk, the company’s CEO. Over 60 protests were orchestrated at Tesla locations nationwide, with an additional dozen expected the following Sunday. This surge in activism arises in response to Musk’s significant role in implementing cost-cutting measures through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tactics that have not gone unnoticed by the Tesla community and its advocates.
As part of the broader “Tesla Takedown” movement, which has gained traction through vocal grassroots efforts, the protests amplified just a week following an impressive turnout of over 200 demonstrations at various Tesla venues. Interestingly, many of the protest sites during this latest event were dual-purpose locations, also participating in the “Hands Off!” rally—an organized day of protest designed to raise awareness and express opposition against Musk’s management strategies and corporate ethics.
Central to the Tesla Takedown campaign is a provocative call to action aimed at Tesla owners and investors; participants are encouraged to divest from the company—be it by selling their Tesla vehicles or offloading shares of stock. This concerted effort targets Musk’s vast wealth, primarily derived from his ownership stake in Tesla. The advocates argue that by economically challenging Musk, they can influence significant corporate changes in line with their advocacy for transparency and ethical governance.
At one notable demonstration outside a Tesla showroom in Rockville, Maryland, a suburb near Washington, D.C., approximately 50 demonstrators gathered, signifying the national reach of this movement. Among them was Susan Barnett, a media professional from New York City, who participated after reuniting with friends. She underscored an important political dimension, articulating to CNN that legislators must recognize the need for engagement in global policy despite prevailing narratives from the White House.
In reaction to the pressures confronting his administration, Musk allegedly suggested last week via the social media platform X that the protests might be orchestrated and funded by unidentified sponsors. However, Madeline Gupta, one of the protesters, denied any payment for her involvement, insisting that her commitment stemmed from genuine concern regarding the political landscape under the Trump administration and the perceived threats to democracy from influential figures like Musk. The grassroots organizers contend that critics pointing fingers at “paid protestors” are merely deflecting from the unpopularity that Musk and DOGE have fostered.
Market realities were stark during this period, too. Tesla shares have seen a significant decline, plummeting over 50 percent from their previous peak in December, culminating in a closing price of $239.43 the Friday prior. This downturn followed the announcement of a 13 percent drop in sales during the first quarter of 2025—the steepest decline in Tesla’s history—highlighting the connection between protest sentiments and financial performance.
Within the administration, Musk, who also oversees SpaceX and holds influence over the social media landscape, was initially appointed to co-lead DOGE alongside biotech mogul Vivek Ramaswamy. However, it appears that Musk’s engagement with DOGE may soon be coming to an end, as reports suggest he will conclude his tenure as a special government employee at the end of May or June. Musk himself has voiced concerns that his government role might be detrimental to his business interests, admitting he has been overwhelmed by juggling various responsibilities and revealing the adverse effects such protests have on his company’s reputation.
In various interviews, Musk reiterated the drawbacks of his dual role in government and business, especially regarding the potential negative impacts on Tesla’s sales amid public unrest and vandalism reported at its dealerships. Observers like media correspondent Sara Fischer have commented on Musk’s apparent preference for returning to the private sector, suggesting his governmental duties may soon be written off as a successful venture.
As the protests continue and the public dialogue surrounding Tesla and its leadership intensifies, the outcomes of the Tesla Takedown and Musk’s unfolding corporate journey remain to be seen. The collective sentiment among those advocating for change reflects a growing desire for ethical corporate governance in the rapidly evolving landscape of technology and democracy.