Organizers of the “Tesla Takedown” have announced their largest planned day of global action, intending to mobilize thousands to peacefully protest outside Tesla showrooms, dealerships, and charging stations. Their aim is to demonstrate against Elon Musk’s influence in reducing government spending.
As the protests gain momentum, a backlash has emerged. Peaceful activists have been increasingly associated with masked individuals engaging in vandalism, such as throwing Molotov cocktails. This conflation has blurred the distinction between peaceful protestors and vandals both on social media and among government circles.
President Donald Trump has characterized the attacks on Tesla as “domestic terrorism,” warning of potential imprisonment in El Salvador for those he terms “terrorist thugs.” Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has committed to prosecuting those who coordinate or fund these acts, though current evidence suggests the incidents are being executed by “lone offenders.” Elon Musk has also fueled public discourse by equating peaceful protest with criminality, further muddying the perception of the movement.
There are concerns that if authorities categorize all anti-Tesla activities as criminal, peaceful demonstrators might face penalties intended for extremists. According to Mike German, a former FBI special agent and fellow at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, the concept of terrorism in law enforcement is problematic due to its political implications. This can lead to counterterrorism measures targeting civil rights rather than acts of violence.
The Tesla Takedown movement has consistently emphasized nonviolence, advocating for divestment from Tesla by encouraging people to sell their vehicles and stock or to cease making new purchases. Natasha Purdum, a New Jersey-based organizer, suggested that financially impacting Musk could undermine some of the governmental changes associated with him and the cryptocurrency DOGE.
Elon Musk’s considerable wealth, largely derived from his significant Tesla stock holdings, allows him to influence various platforms and political outcomes. His financial contributions have supported the campaign efforts that helped elect Donald Trump.
German predicts that local law enforcement might collaborate with terrorism taskforces, like one recently formed by the FBI, to monitor the protests. The Attorney General’s Guidelines do not require substantial evidence of terrorism to initiate surveillance, which can include infiltration and data collection.
Corporate interests may be presented as law enforcement issues when challenged by protests, according to German. Corporations maintain strong political influence and protective measures by law enforcement are often aligned with their interests.
The FBI has not commented on whether any special steps are being taken regarding this weekend’s events. Ahead of planned protests on March 29, Musk and members of the Trump administration have intensified their rhetoric, with Musk indicating intentions to “go after” those financing and promoting misinformation.
Despite assertions of coordinated attacks, internal assessments suggest otherwise. Musk has implicated Tesla Takedown organizers as being funded by ActBlue, a non-profit supporting progressive causes, without providing evidence. Bondi has also accused Rep. Jasmine Crockett of inciting violence, a claim she made following an ambiguous statement during a protest rally.
German highlights the use of rhetoric to undermine protest movements by linking them to violence. Purdum advised protestors to prioritize safety and adhere to legal guidelines, urging them to be prepared for potential legal challenges.
Stephanie Frizzell, an organizer from Dallas, reaffirmed the movement’s commitment to nonviolence, emphasizing the importance of standing against Musk’s actions and advocating for free speech as essential to democracy.
