Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to purchase a Tesla at the White House on Tuesday, CEO Elon Musk pledged to significantly ramp the electric vehicle maker’s production capacity in the United States.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has adopted aggressive strategies to promote domestic manufacturing.

Elon Musk’s 2 Million Vehicle Pledge

Musk’s announcement was shared in a post on social media platform X.“In support of the policies of President Donald Trump and to demonstrate our confidence in the future of the United States, Tesla commits to doubling vehicle production in the U.S. within 2 years!” Musk wrote in his post.

Details on how Tesla plans to achieve this remained unclear. Considering that Tesla’s Fremont Factory is already fully optimized, however, Musk may be looking to expand Tesla’s production using the Gigafactory Texas complex.

Lofty Goals

Tesla’s current U.S. production capacity stands at just about 1 million vehicles per year. As per Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2024 Update Letter, the Fremont Factory currently has a capacity of over 650,000 vehicles per year, while Giga Texas currently has a production capacity of 375,000 vehicles annually.

If Tesla would like to hit 2 million vehicles annually from its U.S. factories, it would have to significantly increase the output of Giga Texas. Tesla could accomplish this with the Cybercab, as per Elon Musk last October.

Elon Musk’s Prediction

During the Q3 2024 earnings call, Musk predicted that Tesla would reach volume production of the Cybercab in 2026. At the time, Musk explained that Tesla is aiming to produce at least 2 million Cybercabs per year. With this in mind, all Tesla really has to do to accomplish Musk’s recent pledge is to follow its existing planned production ramp for its self-driving robotaxi.

“I do feel confident of Cybercab reaching volume production in ’26, not just starting production, reaching volume production in ’26. And that should be substantial, but we’re aiming for at least 2 million units a year of Cybercab. That will be in more than one factory, but I think it’s at least 2 million units a year, maybe 4 million ultimately,” Musk stated.

The FBI in Seattle is investigating the vandalism incidents affecting Tesla owners and store locations.

“FBI Seattle is aware of multiple recent incidents in Washington state related to vandalism of Tesla vehicles and is working with our partners, including ATF and local law enforcement agencies, to determine if federal crimes were committed. We are not able to provide additional details at this time but encourage anyone who has information to contact law enforcement,” noted the FBI’s Seattle office in a statement shared by King 5 local news.

Tesla vehicles and stores have been hit by a barrage of protests against Elon Musk and vandalism by people who disagree with Musk’s political activities. Tesla owners and locations in Seattle experience some of the worst cases of vandalism and violence from people angry with Elon Musk.

The most recent case of vandalism occurred on March 11, Tuesday night, when six Tesla Cybertrucks were spray painted with swastikas and profanity. The Lynnwood Police Department is investigating reports of the Tesla Cybertruck vandalism case.

“We’re not interested in damaging vehicles or harming people or property. We are interested in taking down the stock price of Tesla so that we can send a clear message to Elon Musk and to Donald Trump,” noted Evan Stutton, who organized a “Tesla Takedown” protest in Seattle.

While protesters like Stutton may be peaceful, there is no denying that some people have taken things to the next level and decided on a different form of protest. And now, people other than Trump and Musk are being affected.

“For one, you’re hurting people that work a 9-5 job. I’ve worked very hard for this truck. This was my pride and joy,” commented a Jewish Cybertruck owner whose truck was painted with a swastika.

“You’re not hurting Elon, I already purchased the truck. You’re hurting people that work for a living, and that’s extremely wrong. You want to make a political statement? Go and protest in front of dealerships; that’s fine. That’s your right,” he said. “But to vandalize people’s property with hate symbols?” he said.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, Elon Musk’s appeal to restore his $56 billion Tesla pay package started with claims that the lower court judge who rescinded the 2018 compensation made a few mistakes in the case.

“That counterintuitive result defies settled principles of Delaware law, sound corporate governance, and common sense,” said the opening appeal brief.

Elon Musk, plus current and former Tesla directors, are defendants in this case. In their appeal brief, Musk and the Tesla directors argue that Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathleen McCormick incorrectly applied the entire fairness standard to assess the $56 billion pay package and make her ruling.

According to the Delaware Supreme Court, the entire fairness standard reviews corporate transactions, including those between corporations and their controlling stockholders. The entire fairness standard may apply when a controlling stockholder receives a non-ratable benefit, or there is a potential conflict of interest.

In January 2024, Judge McCormick rescinded Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package. She said the $56 billion compensation plan was unfair to Tesla shareholders because the company’s directors at the time were “beholden” to Musk. The Delaware Chancery Judge also believed that Tesla withheld information from investors before they approved Musk’s 2018 pay package.

Musk’s appeal brief states that Judge McCormick applied the entire fairness standard because Musk controlled pay negotiations at Tesla. In addition, she determined that ordinary business relationships among directors were in conflict and faulted Tesla’s disclosures before the 2018 vote that approved Musk’s $56 billion pay package.

According to Reuters, Judge McCormick’s decision to apply the entire fairness standard granted a “license to sue” to Tesla shareholders. As such, Richard Tornetta was able to file a case in 2018, when he owned nine TSLA shares.

Tornetta filed a derivative suit or a lawsuit filed by a shareholder or multiple shareholders on behalf of a corporation against the corporation’s directors, officers, or third parties who breached their duties.