Davis Boycotts Musk… but Keeps Starlink: Why?

On February 19, 2026, the Davis City Council in California unanimously adopted a resolution against Elon Musk’s companies. Tesla, SpaceX, X, xAI, The Boring Company… all are targeted by this symbolic boycott intended to mark a clear political opposition.

But here’s where it gets interesting: Starlink receives a last-minute exemption. Why? Because the city’s emergency services—EMS, fire, police—depend on this satellite technology for their critical communications.

When political ideology meets technological reality, pragmatism sometimes wins. And this contradiction says a lot about our dependence on innovations, even when they come from controversial figures.

Let’s break down this decision that perfectly illustrates the modern tensions between principles and practical necessities.

Davis Votes Against Musk: What Really Happened?

At its February 19 meeting, the Davis City Council unanimously adopted a resolution with an explicit title: “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies”.

The companies targeted? Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink (initially), X, xAI, and The Boring Company. The stated reasons revolve around accusations of political activities that would threaten “democratic norms”.

The resolution also calls on CalPERS, the California pension fund, to divest from these companies. But it’s important to understand the actual practical scope: this decision only concerns new contracts, not equipment already in place.

And here’s the juicy detail: Davis currently has no active contracts with these companies. The impact is therefore primarily symbolic, a political signal more than a concrete measure.

Starlink Saved at the Last Minute: When Technology Trumps Ideology

The Last-Minute Amendment

Initially, Starlink was indeed on the list of boycotted companies. But at the time of the vote, an amendment was adopted: exemption for Starlink regarding emergency communications.

The services concerned? EMS (medical emergencies), fire, and police. The official justification? The absence of a viable alternative for these critical services.

Why Starlink Has Become Indispensable

The California context explains everything. Between isolated rural areas and fire risks that regularly destroy ground infrastructure, satellite internet often represents the only reliable solution for maintaining emergency communications.

It’s an implicit and rather ironic acknowledgment: Musk’s technology is irreplaceable in certain strategic areas. You vote against someone while officially admitting you can’t do without their innovations. The paradox is… delicious.

Tesla and the Accusations: Separating Fact from Fiction

Union Allegations at the Fremont Factory

Boycott supporters cite “union intimidation tactics” at Tesla. But what’s the legal reality?

A court decision ruled in Tesla’s favor regarding the prohibition of certain pro-union clothing in the factory, for legally validated safety reasons. In 2022, Elon Musk even publicly invited the UAW (United Auto Workers) to organize a vote—an invitation the union never accepted.

Lawsuits for racial discrimination exist, that’s true. But the context is more nuanced than a one-sided presentation. Criticizing Musk is legitimate, but on factual grounds, not on approximations.

Moreover, to distinguish Elon Musk’s controversial statements on social media from the reality of his companies, it’s important to rely on verifiable facts.

The Myth of Tesla’s “Market Share Loss”

Another argument put forward: Tesla is losing ground to its competitors. Let’s look at the EV market reality.

Ford, GM, Stellantis are massively retreating from electric, with financial losses in the billions. Tesla remains largely dominant in the American electric vehicle market. Confusing “declining growth” with “decline” is an analytical error—the data simply doesn’t support this narrative.

Beyond Davis: What Does This Resolution Really Mean?

Let’s be clear: the practical impact is limited. Without current contracts with these companies, Davis is primarily sending a political signal in an increasingly polarized California.

Other progressive American cities have adopted similar positions. But the fundamental question remains: can we separate technological innovation from the creator’s political opinions?

History is full of controversial inventors and entrepreneurs whose creations we use daily. For us, French Tesla owners, geographic distance doesn’t spare us these questions.

The car remains technically excellent, regardless of its CEO’s positions. Buying a product doesn’t mean supporting all the opinions of the person who created it. By reviewing the concrete achievements of Tesla and SpaceX, we can measure the gap between media controversies and real technological contributions.

My Opinion as a Tesla Owner: Where to Draw the Line?

I drive a Tesla for its technical qualities, not out of political support for Elon Musk. This transparency seems essential to me. The controversy surrounding the individual is legitimate and understandable.

We’re living through a modern dilemma: in the age of social media, leaders are hyper-visible and polarizing. We can criticize certain positions while appreciating the innovation they bring.

The Davis example perfectly illustrates our technological dependence: it’s difficult to boycott what has no functional equivalent. To understand Elon Musk’s overall vision for Tesla and electrification, we need to look beyond temporary controversies.

And you, where do you draw the line between principles and pragmatism? The electric transition is more important than egos, and Tesla objectively contributes to it. This isn’t a question that the relevant authorities can answer for us—it’s up to each person to decide according to their values.

The debate remains open, and that’s a good thing. Because ultimately, these apparent contradictions force us to think rather than react impulsively.