Wall Street Journal: Tesla’s board began the process to replace Elon Musk as CEO

CNN - May 1st, 2025

Tesla's board initiated a search for a new CEO in March to potentially replace Elon Musk, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. This action was driven by Tesla's underperforming stock, which has seen a significant decline, dropping by as much as 45% earlier in the year, and the company's poor financial performance in the first quarter, with a 71% decline in earnings. These challenges coincided with Musk's commitment to a government role, which may have strained Tesla's operations. The report revealed that it remains uncertain how Musk's recent decision to step back from his government duties to focus on Tesla might affect the board's succession plans.

The implications of this development are significant for Tesla, as it raises questions about the leadership stability and future strategic direction of the electric car maker. Elon Musk's dual roles have sparked concerns over his capacity to effectively manage Tesla at a time when the company faces intense competition and operational challenges. The board's potential search for a new CEO underscores the urgency to stabilize Tesla's leadership and enhance shareholder confidence. The outcome of these deliberations could have far-reaching consequences for Tesla's market position and its ongoing innovation in the electric vehicle industry.

Elon Musk Tesla Ceo Search Stock Performance Financial Earnings Government Role

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article covers a timely and relevant topic concerning Tesla's leadership and financial performance. It presents significant claims about a potential CEO search and Musk's involvement in government initiatives, which are of considerable public interest. However, the reliance on anonymous sources and lack of direct evidence weakens the story's accuracy and source quality. While the article is generally clear and readable, it could benefit from more balanced perspectives and transparency about its sources. The story has the potential to engage readers and provoke discussion but may not significantly impact public opinion or policy without further verification and context.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that require verification, such as the initiation of a CEO search by Tesla's board and the impact of Elon Musk's government role on the company's performance. The report cites anonymous sources, which raises questions about the verifiability of these claims. The accuracy of financial data, such as the reported 71% drop in earnings, needs confirmation through Tesla's official financial statements. Additionally, the article's assertion that Musk was unaware of the board's actions lacks direct evidence from Musk or the board. While the story aligns with some known facts about Tesla's stock performance, the reliance on unnamed sources and lack of direct quotes from involved parties limit its accuracy.

Balance

The article appears to focus heavily on the negative aspects of Tesla's current situation, such as the decline in stock price and earnings, without providing much context or perspective from Tesla or Musk. There is no representation of Tesla's potential strategies or responses to these challenges, which could offer a more balanced view. The absence of comments from Tesla or Musk further skews the narrative towards speculation rather than a balanced account. The story could benefit from including perspectives from financial analysts or industry experts to provide a fuller picture.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting the information in a logical sequence. The main points about the board's actions and Musk's involvement are outlined effectively, making it easy for readers to understand the narrative. However, the lack of direct quotes or detailed explanations for some claims could lead to confusion about the veracity of the information. Overall, the article maintains a neutral tone but could improve clarity by providing more detailed evidence and context.

Source quality

The article relies on anonymous sources for its primary claims, which diminishes the credibility and reliability of the information. Without named sources or official statements from Tesla or Musk, the story's foundation is weak. The Wall Street Journal is a reputable outlet, but the lack of transparency regarding the sources used in this report affects the overall quality. The story would be strengthened by including more authoritative sources or corroborating evidence from other credible outlets.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient transparency regarding the methodology used to gather information. There is no disclosure of how the anonymous sources are related to the events described or why they remain unnamed. Additionally, the article does not clarify the basis for the financial claims made, such as the 71% earnings drop, which could be verified through Tesla's official reports. Greater transparency about the sources and methods would enhance the article's reliability.