Resurfaced comments from US President Donald Trump regarding electric vehicles dramatically contrast his recently announced support of Tesla, as he brutally rejected their position in the American landscape.

Following his recently-formed strong bond with Elon Musk, it’s no surprise that Trump has now gone all-in on Tesla and their market-leading electric vehicles.

Despite sales declines, value drops, and stock price losses over the last couple of months, Musk’s electric vehicle empire remains the most valuable car company in the world, and holds the 11th highest market cap globally.

Although he’s not actually able to drive the car, President Trump recently announced that he’s buying his very own brand-new Tesla in a bizarre publicity stunt where he claimed that violence against the manufacturer’s dealerships is now classified as ‘domestic terrorism’.

Trump recently pledged key support for Tesla and Musk in a publicity stunt outside the White House (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

However, the president has had somewhat of a rocky history with electric vehicles, and a number of ‘brutal’ comments have resurfaced offering a contradictory position to where Trump currently sits, as reported by AP.

Perhaps most notably, Trump posted on Christmas Day in 2023 with a tirade against his political opponents, which included the ‘Electric Car Lunacy’. He outlined that these rivals are “looking to destroy our once great USA,” and that “MAY THEY ROT IN HELL.” Wonder if he still thinks the same now that he’s gleefully sat in a Tesla?

He has also previously focused on the allegedly limited charge of electric vehicles, indicating that “you better get yourself a gas turbine” to drive out of New Hampshire “because this car is not going to get you there.”

In a similar vein, he also declared that “you go all electric so you can drive for 15 minutes before you have to get a charge.”

Outside of his issues with the long-distance viability of electric vehicles, he has also complained that their creation “was the idea of the Radical Left Fascists, Marxists, & Communists” in a social media post, adding that “within 3 years, all of these cars will be made in China.”

This offers quite a stark contrast to his recent statements on both Tesla and Musk, in which he has posted on Truth Social to claim that ‘Radical Left Lunatics’ “are trying to illegally and collusively boycott Tesla, one of the World’s great automakers,” pledging his support for Musk who he claims is “a truly great American.”

Trump’s close links with Musk were also one of the main reasons why the car manufacturer saw unprecedented stock jumps following the election despite the President’s previous opposition to EVs, and these recent pledges of support have further reaffirmed Trump’s faith in Musk and his companies.

Much like his flip flopping on electric cars, Trump also wasn’t always the fan of Musk as resurfaced footage shows him ripping into the richest man in the world, calling him a ‘bulls*** artist’.

Tesla’s San Francisco showroom has been operating without a final building permit for nearly a decade due to a bureaucratic oversight.

Despite a $2.3 million renovation in 2016, the city’s Department of Building Inspection (DBI) never gave the final sign-off, meaning the showroom has technically been in violation of city regulations ever since.

Reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, DBI records show that inspectors visited the 999 Van Ness Avenue location multiple times in 2015 and 2016 as the showroom underwent extensive upgrades. However, there’s no record of a final inspection ever taking place, certainly not thrilling Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk.

DBI spokesperson Patrick Hannan called the lapse an “oversight” and confirmed that Tesla’s landlords have been issued a notice of violation, requiring them to renew the permit and undergo a final inspection. However, since the building remained an auto showroom, Hannan said it was legally occupiable, and public safety was not compromised. Tesla has yet to comment.

The revelation comes as DBI attempts to clean up its reputation following a 2020 federal corruption probe that led to resignations and prosecutions of department employees, builders, and permit expediters.

A Tesla Model X in San Franciso (Getty Images)

Records show that DBI inspectors confirmed the building’s plumbing, electrical, and heating systems were up to code in mid-2016.

Although, when an official attempted a final inspection that August, they were unable to complete it — and no follow-up was ever scheduled.

Under city codes, construction must be completed and inspected within three years, but no extension appears to have been requested. Last year, DBI flagged key permits for the project as “expired” and “timed out.”

The situation has reignited concerns over DBI’s outdated permit-tracking system, which critics say is riddled with inefficiencies. Supervisor Myrna Melgar criticized the agency’s antiquated processes, saying, “A lot of things go missing, get altered, or fall off the radar because no one is tracking them.”

She added: “The system they have built is not modern, it’s a system built on paper. What I’ve heard for decades is, ‘These are construction people, not very sophisticated, and can’t be expected to use computers.’ What that masks is a way to have a system that is accessible for just a few and to be opaque and controlled by DBI… It is high time we have a system that is open, transparent, and accessible to everybody. The fact that we don’t is really problematic.”

San Francisco previously spent millions attempting to modernize its permit-tracking system with a tool called Accela, but DBI never implemented it. Lee Ann Slinkard, a former Accela executive, stressed the importance of modernizing the process, stating: “You don’t really have legal permission to use those premises, without a final permit.”

The Tesla dealership in San Francisco (Getty Images)

DBI has acknowledged its outdated system and is “actively planning and scoping a replacement system,” according to Hannan. The effort is part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s PermitSF initiative, which aims to streamline San Francisco’s permitting process.

Adding to the controversy, Tesla’s renovations were overseen by contractor John Pollard, who has since been placed on the city’s Expanded Compliance Control program — a list of repeat building code violators. Pollard was flagged in December, leading DBI to review and expire permits linked to his projects, including Tesla’s.

The compliance program was created in response to the city’s corruption scandal, which saw former senior building inspector Bernie Curran and plan checkers Cyril Yu and Rudy Pada plead guilty to fraud charges. Initially, the program only listed one name, but following media scrutiny, DBI has begun adding more. That included Pollard, who is also under state investigation for alleged shoddy workmanship.

With mounting pressure on DBI to reform its flawed system, Tesla’s permit debacle could serve as another example of why San Francisco’s building oversight process needs urgent change.

The Musk family continues to be controversial, with Elon and Errol Musk proving to be as divisive as ever.

As well as being the world’s richest man, Elon Musk finds himself in a new position of power thanks to his role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency.

That’s not the only reason he’s in the news, with him potentially having two new children revealed in the past two weeks, wielding a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and lurking in the background of Donald Trump pictures.

One of his biggest controversies involved accusations he performed a ‘Nazi salute’ at President Trump‘s January 20 inauguration celebrations. There’s been backlash from Tesla owners and Musk’s own daughter, but defending his son, Errol Musk thinks it’s all a misunderstanding.

Speaking to Al Arabia, Errol Musk says that Elon was struggling to get through his inauguration speech and was trying to look charming.

Discussing the situation, Errol Musk referred to his son as a ‘terrible’ public speaker who apparently “has a lot to learn.”

Saying that he also struggled with public speaking when he first started, Errol Musk continued: “I know him very well, that he was struggling to get through his little speech as fast as possible and to try and look as charming as possible as he could, you know, but he’s.

“He struggles. He’s not. He hasn’t reached the incredibly smooth level of people like yourself, who are years of experience, can talk very well.”

As for the controversial gesture, Errol added: “It was not a Nazi (salute). It was an international salute that we’ve had for maybe the last 10,000 years, more, perhaps.

“And the old German Hail Caesar, of course, obviously emanated from, no doubt from the Persians, the Sumerians and so on. It simply meant, my right hand is empty. I do not carry a weapon.”

He goes on to bizarrely claim that other political leaders have pulled off the same gesture, echoing an X post that shows Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris with their arms in the air.

Errol Musk concluded: “Kamala Harris doing exactly the same thing. Nobody seemed to be bothered with it when. When they did it. And whereas Elon was a thrusting out of his arm.

“There’s his actual, you know, sort of like this, which is more like the original Hitler one or something. You know, the. The. The Hail Caesar one was like this, you know, and so on. No, no, it was nonsense. But. But somewhat comical that they picked it up like that, so it’s a bit funny.”

Errol Musk’s defence of his son comes after he’s previously branded him a ‘bad’ father. Elon’s dad spoke about the death of the billionaire’s first son and claimed that his children were left with nannies too much.

Elon and Errol Musk have something of a strained relationship, although the latter comes to his son’s defence at the most unexpected times.

Ever come to the end of the year, looked at your annual payslip and felt a bit like you deserve more?

Well, spare a thought for Elon Musk, consistently one of the three richest men in the world, who needs to get approval for a $56 million pay packet. The pay comes in the form of a stock package that was meant to start coming his was in 2018 and continue for 10 years.

Musk had that package rejected by a Delaware judge earlier this year and now needs Tesla shareholders to approve it, which is a slightly taller order than it might have been a few years ago.

Tesla is asking shareholders to restore a $56 billion pay package for CEO Elon Musk / ANGELA WEISS / Contributor / Getty

Tesla’s stock price has not been in the rudest health this year, after all, falling 37% already, so it’ll be interesting to see whether Musk’s request is approved.

However, despite that recent turbulence, Musk and his team are arguing that the overall growth metrics agreed in 2018 have been clearly surpassed, with Tesla’s share price up by more than 500% since then.

While the headline-grabbing total that Musk is asking for is massive, it can also be contextualised a little, as explained by the Chairperson of the board of directors at Tesla, Robyn Denholm.

She wrote: “Because the Delaware Court second-guessed your decision, Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years that has helped to generate significant growth and stockholder value. That strikes us – and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard – as fundamentally unfair, and inconsistent with the will of the stockholders who voted for it.”

So, the chair of the board of directors is clearly very much on board with the request (which shouldn’t be too surprising since a good relationship with Musk is surely a must in that position).

However, it’s still over to the shareholders to re-approve the plan – and even then, it might be questioned and rejected once again by Delaware’s judges.

If that happens, a replacement plan will need to be agreed and possibly even back-dated, which could take time and expensive resources up, so it would seem that Tesla has got itself into quite a bind.

The key question being assessed by the judge each time someone looks into this is whether shareholders are being given fair value by the pay package, to stop CEOs from just taking outrageous pay without any checks or balances.

In each case, though, it requires a shareholder to bring the case through the system – the state won’t just look into this of its own accord.