California City Considers Banning Tesla and SpaceX: The Anti-Musk Movement Goes Too Far | Taha Abbasi

In a move that Taha Abbasi calls “the intersection of politics and absurdity,” a California city is considering a resolution to ban all contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk — including Tesla and SpaceX. The draft resolution, titled “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” represents the most extreme example yet of anti-Musk sentiment bleeding into policy.

The resolution alleges that Musk “has engaged in conduct that is harmful to the public interest” and calls on the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to divest its holdings in Tesla, SpaceX, and other Musk-controlled entities. As Taha Abbasi examines this proposal, the practical implications range from the concerning to the outright comical.

What the Resolution Actually Proposes

The draft resolution would prohibit the city from entering into new contracts with any company where Elon Musk holds a controlling interest. This would affect not just Tesla vehicle purchases and Supercharger installations, but also Starlink internet service (increasingly used for emergency communications), SpaceX launch services (relevant for any city-affiliated research), and potentially even X (formerly Twitter) advertising.

The resolution also urges CalPERS — which manages retirement benefits for nearly 2 million California public employees — to sell its Tesla stock. As of early 2026, CalPERS held significant positions in Tesla, making this recommendation particularly notable. If CalPERS were to actually divest, it could impact the retirement savings of teachers, firefighters, and police officers across the state.

The Practical Problems

As Taha Abbasi points out, the resolution exposes a fundamental tension: many of the technologies that California cities depend on for their clean energy and climate goals are produced by Musk’s companies. Tesla makes the most popular EVs in the state. Tesla’s Megapack systems are deployed across California’s power grid. Starlink provides internet to rural California communities. SpaceX launches satellites that support everything from weather forecasting to GPS navigation.

Banning engagement with these companies doesn’t just make a political statement — it potentially harms the city’s own sustainability goals, emergency preparedness, and technological infrastructure. It’s the policy equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This comes just days after Tesla successfully avoided a statewide sales suspension by cooperating with the California DMV on its Autopilot marketing practices. The contrast is striking: at the state level, Tesla is being treated as a legitimate (if closely regulated) business partner, while at the city level, some officials want to ban the company entirely.

A Growing National Trend

This California city isn’t alone. Several municipalities across the country have considered similar anti-Musk resolutions in recent months, driven by political opposition to Musk’s involvement in government efficiency initiatives and his social media presence. However, most of these proposals have failed to gain traction once the practical implications became clear.

Taha Abbasi sees a parallel to the broader EV market: political sentiment and actual consumer behavior often diverge dramatically. Tesla remains the best-selling EV brand in California by a wide margin, and the Cybertruck has been spotted on California roads in increasing numbers. Consumers, it seems, separate the product from the politics more readily than politicians do.

The Investment Angle

The CalPERS divestment recommendation deserves particular scrutiny. Tesla’s market capitalization exceeds that of Toyota, BYD, GM, Ford, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Ferrari, BMW, Volkswagen Group, Honda, Nissan, Renault, XPeng, and NIO — combined. Asking California’s largest pension fund to divest from one of the market’s strongest performers raises serious fiduciary questions.

CalPERS has a legal obligation to maximize returns for its beneficiaries. Politically motivated divestment from a high-performing stock could expose the fund to legal challenges from retirees who argue their returns were sacrificed for political purposes. This tension between political messaging and fiduciary duty has played out in other contexts (fossil fuel divestment, for example) and rarely resolves in favor of the political argument.

The Bigger Picture

As Taha Abbasi frequently reminds his audience, the technologies that will define the next century — electric vehicles, autonomous driving, space exploration, satellite internet, AI — don’t have political affiliations. A Tesla Supercharger doesn’t care who voted for whom. A Starlink satellite provides internet to rural communities regardless of their politics. SpaceX launches NASA astronauts to the International Space Station regardless of who’s in the White House.

Attempts to politicize these technologies ultimately harm the communities that need them most. The question California cities should be asking isn’t “how do we punish Elon Musk?” but “how do we best serve our residents?” And in 2026, the answer to that question often involves the very companies this resolution targets.

---

About the Author: Taha Abbasi is a technology executive, CTO, and applied frontier tech builder. Read more on Grokpedia | YouTube: The Brown Cowboy | tahaabbasi.com