Tesla Talk

Tesla sales tumble 13% as Musk backlash, competition and aging lineup turn off buyers

Tesla sales are down to start the year. Getty Images

Tesla sales fell 13% in the first three months of the year, another sign that Elon Musk’s once high-flying electric car company is struggling to attract buyers.

The double-digit drop is likely due to a combination of factors, including its aging lineup, competition from rivals and a backlash from Musk’s embrace of right wing politics. It also is a warning that the company’s first-quarter earnings report later this month could disappoint investors.

Tesla reported deliveries of 336,681 globally in the January to March quarter. The figure was down from sales of 387,000 in the same period a year ago. The decline came despite deep discounts, zero financing and other incentives.

Analysts polled by FactSet expected much higher deliveries of 408,000.

Dan Ives of Wedbush said in a note to clients that Tesla is seeing soft demand in the United States and China, as well as facing pressure in Europe.

“The brand crisis issues are clearly having a negative impact on Tesla...there is no debate,” he said.

Ives said that Wall Street financial analysts knew the first-quarter figures were likely to be bad, but that it was even worse than expected, calling them a “disaster on every metric.”

The sales drop came three weeks after President Donald Trump held an extraordinary press conference outside the White House in which he praised Tesla, blasted boycotts against the company and bought a Tesla himself while TV cameras rolled in an effort to help lift sales.

“I don’t like what’s happening to you,” said Trump, before slipping into a red Model S and exclaiming, “Wow. That’s beautiful.”

After falling as much as 6% in early Wednesday, Tesla stock shot up more than 5% in afternoon trading after a report from Politico, citing anonymous sources, that Musk may soon step down from leadership of his Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting group that has led to tens of thousands of federal workers losing their jobs.

Tesla investors have complained the DOGE work has diverted Musk's focus from Tesla, where he is the CEO. On Tuesday, New York City's comptroller overseeing pension funds down $300 million this year on Tesla holdings called for a lawsuit accusing a distracted Musk of "driving Tesla off a financial cliff.”

Tesla’s stock has plunged by roughly half since hitting a mid-December record as expectations of a lighter regulatory touch and big profits with Donald Trump as president were replaced by fear that the boycott of Musk's cars and other problems could hit the company hard.

Analysts are still not sure exactly how much the fall in sales is due to the protests or other factors. Electric car sales have been sluggish in general, and Tesla in particular is suffering as car buyers hold off from buying its bestselling Model Y while waiting for an updated version.

Still, even bullish financial analysts who earlier downplayed the backlash to Musk’s polarizing political stances are acknowledging that it is hurting the company, something that Musk also recently acknowledged.

“This is a very expensive job,” Musk said at a Wisconsin rally on Sunday, referring to his DOGE role. “My Tesla stock and the stock of everyone who holds Tesla has gone roughly in half."

The protests come as the Austin, Texas electric vehicle maker faces fierce competition from other EV makers offering vastly improved models, including those of BYD. The Chinese EV giant unveiled in March a technology that allows it cars to charge up in just five to eight minutes.

Tesla is expected to report earnings of 48 cents per share for the first quarter later this month, up 7% from a year earlier, according to a survey of financial analysts who the car company by research firm FactSet.

Nearly all of Tesla’s sales in the quarter came from the smaller and less-expensive Models 3 and Y, with the company selling less than 13,000 more expensive models, which include X and S as well as the Cybertruck.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Texas doesn’t have a rule to capture escaping methane emissions from energy infrastructure. Photo via Getty Images

The first year of President Trump’s second term has seen an aggressive rollback of federal environmental protections, which advocacy groups fear will bring more pollution, higher health risks, and less information and power for Texas communities, especially in heavily industrial and urban areas.

Within Trump’s first 100 days in office, his new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced a sweeping slate of 31 deregulatory actions. The list, which Zeldin called the agency’s “greatest day of deregulation,” targeted everything from soot standards and power plant pollution rules to the Endangerment Finding, the legal and scientific foundation that obligates the EPA to regulate climate-changing pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Since then, the agency froze research grants, shrank its workforce, and removed some references to climate change and environmental justice from its website — moves that environmental advocates say send a clear signal: the EPA’s new direction will come at the expense of public health.

Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Texas is one of the states that feels EPA policy changes directly because the state has shown little interest in stepping up its environmental enforcement as the federal government scales back.

“If we were a state that was open to doing our own regulations there’d be less impact from these rollbacks,” Reed said. “But we’re not.”

“Now we have an EPA that isn’t interested in enforcing its own rules,” he added.

Richard Richter, a spokesperson at the state’s environmental agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the agency takes protecting public health and natural resources seriously and acts consistently and quickly to enforce federal and state environmental laws when they’re violated.

Methane rules put on pause

A major EPA move centers on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide over the short term. It accounts for roughly 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is a major driver of climate change. In the U.S., the largest source of methane emissions is the energy sector, especially in Texas, the nation’s top oil and gas producer.

In 2024, the Biden administration finalized long-anticipated rules requiring oil and gas operators to sharply reduce methane emissions from wells, pipelines, and storage facilities. The rule, developed with industry input, targeted leaks, equipment failures, and routine flaring, the burning off of excess natural gas at the wellhead.

Under the rule, operators would have been required to monitor emissions, inspect sites with gas-imaging cameras for leaks, and phase out routine flaring. States are required to come up with a plan to implement the rule, but Texas has yet to do so. Under Trump’s EPA, that deadline has been extended until January 2027 — an 18-month postponement.

Texas doesn’t have a rule to capture escaping methane emissions from energy infrastructure. Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson, said the agency continues to work toward developing the state plan.

Adrian Shelley, Texas director of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said the rule represented a rare moment of alignment between environmentalists and major oil and gas producers.

“I think the fossil fuel industry generally understood that this was the direction the planet and their industry was moving,” he said. Shelley said uniform EPA rules provided regulatory certainty for changes operators saw as inevitable.

Reed, the Sierra Club conservation director, said the delay of methane rules means Texas still has no plan to reduce emissions, while neighboring New Mexico already has imposed its own state methane emission rules that require the industry to detect and repair methane leaks and ban routine venting and flaring.

These regulations have cut methane emissions in the New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin — the oil-rich area that covers West Texas and southeast New Mexico — to half that of Texas, according to a recent data analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. That’s despite New Mexico doubling production since 2020.

A retreat from soot standards

Fine particulate matter or PM 2.5, one of six pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, has been called by researchers the deadliest form of air pollution.

In 2024, the EPA under President Biden strengthened air rules for particulate matter by lowering the annual limit from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. It was the first update since 2012 and one of the most ambitious pieces of Biden’s environmental agenda, driven by mounting evidence that particulate pollution is linked to premature death, heart disease, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses.

After the rule was issued, 24 Republican-led states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, sued to revert to the weaker standard. Texas filed a separate suit asking to block the rule’s recent expansion.

State agencies are responsible for enforcing the federal standards. The TCEQ is charged with creating a list of counties that exceed the federal standard and submitting those recommendations to Gov. Greg Abbott, who then finalizes the designations and submits them to the EPA.

Under the 9 microgram standard, parts of Texas, including Dallas, Harris (which includes Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth), and Bowie (Texarkana) counties, were in the process of being designated nonattainment areas — which, when finalized, would trigger a legal requirement for the state to develop a plan to clean up the air.

That process stalled after Trump returned to office. Gov. Greg Abbott submitted his designations to EPA last February, but EPA has not yet acted on his designations, according to Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson.

In a court filing last year, the Trump EPA asked a federal appeals court to vacate the stricter standard, bypassing the traditional notice and comment administrative process.

For now, the rule technically remains in effect, but environmental advocates say the EPA’s retreat undermines enforcement of the rule and signals to polluters that it may be short-lived.

Shelley, with Public Citizen, believes the PM2.5 rule would have delivered the greatest health benefit of any EPA regulation affecting Texas, particularly through reductions in diesel pollution from trucks.

“I still hold out hope that it will come back,” he said.

Unraveling the climate framework

Beyond individual pollutants, the Trump EPA has moved to dismantle the federal architecture for addressing climate change.

Among the proposals is eliminating the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires power plants, refineries, and oil and gas suppliers to report annual emissions. The proposal has drawn opposition from both environmental groups and industry, which relies on the data for planning and compliance.

Colin Leyden, Texas state director and energy lead at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said eliminating the program could hurt Texas industry. If methane emissions are no longer reported, then buyers and investors of natural gas, for example, won’t have an official way to measure how much methane pollution is associated with that gas, according to Leyden. That makes it harder to judge how “clean” or “climate-friendly” the product is, which international buyers are increasingly demanding.

“This isn’t just bad for the planet,” he said. “It makes the Texas industry less competitive.”

The administration also proposed last year rescinding the Endangerment Finding, issued in 2009, which obligates the EPA to regulate climate pollution. Most recently, the EPA said it will stop calculating how much money is saved in health care costs as a result of air pollution regulations that curb particulate matter 2.5 and ozone, a component of smog. Both can cause respiratory and health problems.

Leyden said tallying up the dollar value of lives saved when evaluating pollution rules is a foundational principle of the EPA since its creation.

“That really erodes the basic idea that (the EPA) protects health and safety and the environment,” he said.

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Trending News