Importance Score: 78 / 100 🔴
Global protests against Tesla and Elon Musk are anticipated this weekend, as “Tesla Takedown” organizers announce their largest coordinated demonstrations. Activists are being encouraged to peacefully assemble outside Tesla showrooms, dealerships, and charging stations to voice their opposition to Elon Musk’s perceived role in government spending reductions. This widespread action comes amid growing controversy surrounding Tesla and its leadership.
Tesla Protests Spark Backlash and Vandalism Concerns
As demonstrations against Tesla have increased in scale, so has the negative reaction. There is a growing trend conflating peaceful activists holding signs with individuals engaged in vandalism, such as masked figures throwing Molotov cocktails. This distinction between peaceful protest and violent acts is becoming increasingly blurred on social media and within political circles in Washington.
Escalating Rhetoric and Accusations of “Terrorism”
Former President Donald Trump has characterized attacks on Tesla properties as “domestic terrorism.” He further threatened to imprison “terrorist thugs” in overseas facilities. Former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared her intention to prosecute those “coordinating and funding these crimes,” despite evidence suggesting that the destructive actions were perpetrated by “lone offenders.” Adding to the charged atmosphere, Elon Musk has publicly accused at least one peaceful protester on X of “committing crimes,” contributing to a public narrative that equates legitimate protest with vandalism, and further, vandalism with terrorism.
This rhetoric raises concerns that if government or law enforcement agencies begin to treat all anti-Tesla actions as criminal, peaceful demonstrators could face repercussions intended for genuine extremists.
First Amendment Concerns and Law Enforcement Response
Mike German, a former FBI special agent and fellow at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, cautioned against this approach. “Terrorism is a problematic concept in law enforcement because it is inherently distinguished from other forms of violence by its political motivations,” German told TechCrunch. He added, “This distinction is critical because counterterrorism measures have frequently resulted in problematic outcomes, targeting the civil rights of individuals engaged in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity, rather than those actually committing violent acts.”
Organizers of the Tesla Takedown have consistently emphasized non-violent tactics during rallies and on their online platforms. The movement’s stated objective is not to inflict physical harm on Tesla or Musk, but rather to persuade individuals to divest from Tesla by selling their vehicles and stock, and to cease purchasing new Tesla products.
Economic Pressure as Protest Strategy
Natasha Purdum, an organizer based in New Jersey, explained the strategy to TechCrunch: “Mr. Musk’s influential position stems from his considerable wealth. We believe that by continuing to exert downward pressure on Tesla’s stock price, we can target him where it will have the greatest impact.” Purdum further stated, “Ultimately, we view this as a crucial element in combating the significant harm being inflicted upon our federal government, largely due to the actions of DOGE and Elon Musk.”
Musk’s status as the world’s wealthiest individual is largely attributable to his Tesla holdings. Owning approximately 13% of the company, with a current valuation of roughly $829 billion, Musk’s Tesla stake is estimated at around $107.8 billion. This substantial wealth facilitated his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter (now X), his primary communication channel to over 219 million followers. Additionally, Musk has contributed over $260 million from his personal funds to a political action committee supporting Trump.
FBI Monitoring and Surveillance Concerns
Drawing on his 16 years of experience as an FBI special agent focused on domestic terrorism, German indicated that it would not be surprising to see local law enforcement collaborating with terrorism task forces—including the recently formed FBI task force—to monitor Tesla Takedown demonstrations. According to the Attorney General’s Guidelines, the FBI is not required to possess a factual basis for suspecting terrorism to initiate physical surveillance. This can include photographing individuals, vehicles, and license plates, deploying informants to infiltrate groups, and accessing private databases.
German further elaborated on the broader context of law enforcement priorities: “It is crucial to understand that law enforcement in the United States is fundamentally structured to safeguard the property interests of the affluent. Corporations wield significant political influence and maintain access to elected officials and high-ranking law enforcement personnel. Consequently, when their interests are challenged, particularly through protest, they tend to frame these issues as law enforcement matters, rather than acknowledging legitimate public concerns regarding their corporate practices.”
When contacted for comment on whether the agency was undertaking any specific actions this weekend, the FBI declined to provide a statement to TechCrunch.
Escalating Rhetoric: “We’re Going to Go After Them”
In the days leading up to March 29, with at least 213 Tesla Takedown protests planned globally—spanning locations from Colorado and Kentucky to Germany, Minnesota, France, and Texas—both Musk and the Trump administration have intensified their public statements.
On Thursday, during an appearance on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Musk declared that both he and Trump intend to “go after…the individuals providing the funds, those disseminating the falsehoods and propaganda.”
Trump has suggested that the actions against Tesla properties were orchestrated to intimidate Musk, despite internal assessments suggesting otherwise. Musk has also asserted, without presenting evidence, that certain Tesla Takedown organizers are financially supported by ActBlue, a non-profit organization that provides funding to progressive causes and Democratic candidates.
Adding to the heightened rhetoric, Bondi has accused Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) of “inciting further insurrection.” This accusation follows Crockett’s statement at a virtual Tesla Takedown rally last week, where she asserted that Musk needed to be “taken down.” Although Crockett’s statement also included calls for non-violence and peaceful demonstration, Bondi nonetheless cautioned her to “tread very carefully.”
German commented that this type of rhetoric is a recurring government tactic used to discredit and suppress protest movements. He explained that by claiming “a few isolated acts of violence are the consequence of the spread of harmful, radical ideologies,” authorities attempt to undermine legitimate dissent.
Protest Organizer Advice: Safety and Legal Awareness
Purdum, a Tesla Takedown organizer, urged protesters to prioritize their safety. She advised attendees to leave if they feel unsafe, to comply with local protest regulations, to avoid trespassing, to follow police instructions, and to keep a lawyer’s contact information readily accessible, “just in case.”
Stephanie Frizzell, a Tesla Takedown organizer from Dallas, noted the historical context of such tactics: “Authoritarian regimes have a long history of equating peaceful protest with violence. The Tesla Takedown movement has consistently been, and will remain, non-violent. Their objective is to intimidate us into silence as we challenge Musk’s detrimental actions—however, safeguarding free speech is fundamental to democracy. We will not be intimidated.”