Davis wants to ban Tesla: politics vs Musk’s business

I follow Tesla news closely, and this really surprised me. Davis, California, a small college town, could ban any collaboration with Elon Musk’s companies. This isn’t just a debate about electric cars—it’s a city resolution that directly targets Tesla, SpaceX, and all companies controlled by Musk.

This story goes far beyond cars. It raises questions about where the line is between a leader’s political activism and their businesses. Let’s break it down together to understand what’s really at stake.

Davis, California: an anti-Musk resolution on the table

Let’s set the scene. Davis is a progressive college town of 68,000 people in California. On February 17, 2026, its city council will vote on a city resolution titled “Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies”.

Here’s what I gathered from reviewing the city documents: the resolution aims to ban new contracts and purchases with Tesla, SpaceX, and all companies controlled by Musk. Robotaxis would also be excluded from future city discussions.

In practical terms, the city commits to not signing any new contracts with these companies. It’s factual, it’s clear, and it stands out when you know how common Teslas are on California roads.

The official grievances: between legal allegations and political criticism

Alleged violations of labor and environmental law

The resolution lists several accusations against Musk’s companies, including alleged non-compliance with labor law, suspected violations of environmental regulations, and concerns about workplace safety standards.

These accusations aren’t new in Tesla news, but formalizing them in a city resolution is. It gives institutional weight to criticisms that had previously circulated in the press and on social media.

The political angle that stings

This is where it gets tricky. The resolution also accuses Musk of using his corporate platforms for ideological purposes and mentions threatened “democratic norms.” This political dimension directly refers to Musk’s post-2024 activism.

I have to admit, this part makes me uneasy. How far can you separate a leader from their companies? It’s a question worth asking, without necessarily giving a definitive answer.

Practical consequences: what would this ban really change?

Let’s be honest: for now, it’s mostly a political signal. According to the city report, Davis has no active contract with Tesla. The budget impact is estimated at zero by the city staff analysis.

Tesla owners in Davis can breathe easy: their access to Superchargers remains unchanged, since it’s private infrastructure. The resolution targets only future city contracts, not personal vehicle use.

However, Tesla Robotaxis would be excluded from any future discussions with the city. Since the service isn’t deployed in Davis yet, this is more about prevention than immediate action.

The symbolic dimension goes far beyond the short-term real-world impact.

CalPERS in the crosshairs: investing while criticizing

Here’s one point that really caught my attention. The resolution asks CalPERS, the largest U.S. public pension fund, to divest from Musk’s companies.

The paradox is pretty striking: CalPERS voted against Musk’s pay package in 2024, yet continues to invest heavily in Tesla. Criticizing while still collecting the returns—the California balancing act…

Let’s be realistic: the likelihood of a real divestment remains low. Tesla’s financial performance speaks for itself, and a pension fund has fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries.

This request looks more like a statement of intent than a concrete financial strategy.

Baltimore and others: a movement spreading?

Davis isn’t alone, and that’s what stands out to me. Baltimore recently canceled a $5 million contract for an electric vehicle fleet. Other municipalities have taken similar steps since the 2024 presidential election.

This post-election context reveals growing political polarization in the United States. Musk’s companies are becoming ideological markers, which seems problematic to me for the energy transition.

The question remains open: is this a lasting trend or a short-lived protest wave? My gut says it will depend a lot on how Musk’s own political positioning evolves.

The Supercharger network, collateral damage of a political boycott

I’ll admit it—this raises questions for the EV transition. The Supercharger network is now open to all automakers and is the most reliable and extensive charging infrastructure in the United States today.

In fact, the expansion of the Supercharger network in California clearly shows how strategically important this infrastructure is in the state. Boycotting Tesla also means giving up this infrastructure—or at least making its future development more complicated.

Non-Tesla EV owners are also affected by this paradox. How do you encourage the energy transition while boycotting the leader whose infrastructure makes it possible?

This contradiction seems to capture the full complexity of the situation: can political convictions justify slowing down climate goals?

This case highlights a growing tension in the United States between environmental goals and political positioning. For French Tesla owners following U.S. news, it’s a signal worth watching, even if the European context remains very different.

The underlying question remains: where does the company end, and where does the man begin? Can Tesla’s innovations be separated from its CEO’s positions? The answers vary depending on people’s views, and that’s normal. What Davis and other municipalities are showing is that the relevant authorities are no longer hesitating to mix political criteria with economic decisions.

And you—what do you think? Does this resolution seem justified to you, or counterproductive for the energy transition?