Elon Musk’s Furious Response to Tesla Board’s Alleged Plan to Replace Him as CEO

Elon Musk has launched a fiery and unapologetic counterattack following reports that the Tesla board of directors was secretly preparing to replace him as CEO. In a direct and blistering post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Musk labeled The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the matter as “deliberately false” and condemned the paper for what he called “an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS.”

The media storm erupted after The Wall Street Journal published an investigative report on Wednesday stating that members of Tesla’s board had been in quiet contact with executive search firms since late March. The report claimed that both investors and board members had begun seriously exploring succession plans for Musk, motivated by concerns over his increasingly controversial political entanglements—most notably his appointment earlier this year to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration.

In his post, Musk did not mince words, accusing the publication of ignoring a pre-submission denial from Tesla’s board and deliberately misrepresenting the facts. “It is an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the Wall Street Journal would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board of directors!” Musk posted in all caps, signaling the seriousness with which he views the alleged misinformation.

Tesla’s corporate leadership moved swiftly to reinforce Musk’s message. Robyn Denholm, chair of the Tesla board, issued a public statement also posted on X, strongly refuting the claims made in the article. “Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla Board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company,” she wrote.

“This is absolutely false (and this was communicated to the media before the report was published). The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead.”

The company’s denial, however, did little to calm the market. Tesla’s shares had already taken a hit earlier in the week following a series of negative developments—including a staggering 71% drop in first-quarter profits and news of surging backlash over Musk’s alignment with President Trump. Now, with the company battling a public relations firestorm over the alleged CEO succession plan, investor unease is growing deeper.

The origins of the controversy trace back to January, when President Trump appointed Musk to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency—a move that was celebrated by some conservatives but sparked immediate criticism and widespread protests among liberal and centrist consumer bases. Demonstrations targeting Tesla showrooms and charging stations broke out in multiple U.S. states, and social media campaigns calling for a boycott of Tesla products quickly gained international traction.

In the wake of this political fallout, Tesla’s financial performance began to reflect the turbulence. On April 22, the company reported that its first-quarter net income had fallen to $409 million—down 71% year-over-year—and missed Wall Street expectations by a staggering $566 million.

Revenue for the quarter totaled $19.34 billion, falling short of the $21.11 billion forecast. Automotive revenue dropped by 20% year-on-year to $14 billion, partly due to factory retooling and the softening of global EV demand.

The numbers painted a bleak picture and raised serious questions about Tesla’s near-term growth trajectory. And just as investor frustration reached a peak, The Wall Street Journal’s report poured gasoline on the fire by suggesting that even Tesla’s board was beginning to doubt Musk’s commitment to the company.

While Musk insists that the article is baseless, the timing of the board’s public denial—and the strength of its language—suggests an acute awareness of the reputational stakes. Musk’s position as Tesla’s figurehead has always been both an asset and a liability.

His genius and daring have built the company from the ground up, but his behavior and shifting attention have periodically shaken investor confidence. In recent years, as Musk took on increasingly larger roles at SpaceX, X, Neuralink, and now the federal government, critics have argued that his attention has been dangerously divided.

During a recent Tesla earnings call, Musk attempted to quell these concerns by stating he would begin devoting significantly more of his time to Tesla starting in May. He characterized his role in DOGE as limited, saying he planned to spend only “a day or two per week” on government work. But for many investors, that reassurance came too late.

Speculation about internal unrest within Tesla’s leadership is not new. For years, critics and activist shareholders have accused the company’s board—largely handpicked by Musk—of acting more like a protective shield than a governing body.

Denholm’s role in defending Musk’s multi-billion dollar compensation package, for example, has long drawn scrutiny from corporate governance experts. The Wall Street Journal report reignited those concerns, with anonymous sources suggesting that even some of Musk’s longtime allies on the board had quietly begun questioning whether a leadership change was necessary.

Despite these whispers, Musk’s public stance remains firm. He has shown no sign of backing down or considering a transition of power.

On the contrary, his explosive reaction to the report reflects the defiance he has often displayed when facing criticism—be it from regulators, short sellers, journalists, or political opponents.

Yet, the damage may already be done. Tesla's brand has taken a hit from a combination of political backlash, product stagnation, and financial disappointment. While the company continues to bet heavily on its AI ambitions, robotaxi development, and humanoid robotics, its core business—electric vehicles—is under increasing pressure from Chinese competitors and legacy automakers expanding their EV lineups.

Whether this latest controversy marks a temporary hiccup or the beginning of a deeper leadership crisis remains to be seen. The market will be watching closely in the coming months for any signs of internal restructuring, boardroom conflict, or shifts in Musk’s time allocation.

For now, Tesla’s message is clear: Elon Musk remains at the helm, and any talk of succession is being publicly denounced as fiction. But as pressure mounts from investors, consumers, and regulators, and as Tesla’s stock continues to wobble, the resilience of that message—and of Musk’s grip on the company—will undoubtedly be tested.