Moments After Quitting DOGE, Elon Musk Faces Brutal Ultimatum from Furious Tesla Investors

A growing chorus of concern is erupting from within Tesla’s own investor base, and the message is strikingly clear: Elon Musk must start acting like a full-time CEO again — or prepare to face serious repercussions. In a sharply worded letter sent on Wednesday to Robyn Denholm, the chair of Tesla’s board of directors, a coalition of pension fund leaders and institutional investors issued a stern demand: Musk must commit to working no less than 40 hours per week exclusively for Tesla.

The ultimatum comes as the electric vehicle maker grapples with what investors describe as a multifaceted crisis, fueled not only by plunging sales and falling stock value but also by what they believe is the erratic behavior of its CEO and his expanding set of personal and political pursuits beyond Tesla.

The investors, who collectively manage 7.9 million shares in Tesla, are not fringe stakeholders. They represent some of the largest public and labor-affiliated funds in America, including the pro-labor SOC Investment Group, the American Federation of Teachers, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, and Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner.

Their letter outlines a picture of Tesla in distress: stock price volatility, shrinking global reputation, a collapse in European sales, and growing scrutiny over Tesla’s labor and human rights policies. The common thread, the investors argue, is Musk himself — a CEO increasingly distracted by external ventures and political entanglements, whose continued absence from the core operations of Tesla threatens the company’s future.

Indeed, the evidence they marshal is difficult to ignore. Since early 2024, Tesla has suffered a dramatic brand erosion. Once seen as a champion of clean tech and innovation, the company has dropped from eighth to 95th in the Axios Harris Poll, which measures the public perception of 100 of the most visible American brands.

Tesla now ranks behind six of its automotive competitors — a stunning fall from grace for what was once the darling of Wall Street and Silicon Valley alike. 

While the Nasdaq Composite Index has lost just 1% of its value in 2025, Tesla’s stock has plunged by 12%, a grim reflection of waning investor confidence. And in April, the company’s European sales nosedived nearly 50% compared to the same month last year, confirming a troubling sales trajectory that began in the first quarter and continues to spiral downward.

The investors attribute these failures, in large part, to Musk’s divided attention. While Tesla has floundered, Musk has deepened his involvement in other ventures — namely xAI, SpaceX, and a controversial role as the architect of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a bureaucratic-cutting initiative under the Trump administration.

At DOGE, Musk has pushed sweeping federal downsizing programs while simultaneously campaigning for Donald Trump’s re-election, to which he has donated nearly $300 million. 

Musk has also attracted global criticism after openly endorsing Germany’s far-right AfD party in the run-up to this year’s parliamentary elections. These actions, investors argue, have directly damaged Tesla’s international image and fueled consumer backlash in key markets such as Europe.

What’s more, this is not the first time the governance of Tesla has come under fire. In early 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated Musk’s mammoth 2018 pay package, valued at approximately $56 billion, citing a flawed and misleading approval process controlled by Musk and a conflicted Tesla board. Now, Musk is demanding even more shares — enough to secure 25% voting control over the company.

For the investors who signed Wednesday’s letter, this demand is unacceptable without a clear and enforceable set of conditions. Chief among them is the requirement that Musk dedicate at least 40 hours each week to Tesla — a stipulation that echoes the expectations of any other CEO running a public company of its size and global importance.

In addition to time commitments, the investors are asking for broader governance reforms. They want Tesla’s board to develop a transparent CEO succession plan and to adopt a new policy that limits the number of outside board commitments held by Tesla directors. This demand follows the company’s announcement that Jack Hartung, the former CFO of Chipotle, will join Tesla’s board.

Although Hartung is an experienced executive, his previous collaboration with Kimbal Musk — Elon Musk’s brother and fellow Tesla board member — raises concerns about independence and cronyism. To address this, the investors are urging Tesla to appoint at least one new truly independent board member, someone with no familial or personal ties to the current boardroom power structure.

Perhaps most strikingly, the letter accuses Tesla’s current board of failing in its fiduciary responsibility. “The board has been unwilling to act in the best interest of all Tesla shareholders,” the investors write, blaming the directors for enabling Musk’s absentee leadership and for neglecting the strategic health of the company.

They warn that Tesla’s once-dominant position in the EV market is no longer secure, and that without decisive leadership and governance reforms, the company risks losing its edge to more focused competitors.

The pressure campaign comes as Musk has attempted to reassure stakeholders by stating that he intends to focus more on his companies. But skeptics point to his ever-expanding portfolio and the reality that his time is split among more than half a dozen enterprises — including not just Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, but also ventures like Neuralink, the Boring Company, and political projects under the DOGE umbrella.

In the view of institutional investors, this is a recipe for disaster. Running Tesla part-time, they argue, is no longer viable — not when the company is facing the dual threats of a declining EV market and growing geopolitical instability.

Tesla’s board has not issued a formal response to the letter. Nor has Musk publicly commented on the specific demand for a 40-hour work week at Tesla. But the absence of engagement will only intensify scrutiny from shareholders who now appear less willing to tolerate Musk’s iconoclastic leadership style.

In the past, his outsized persona and unorthodox methods were seen as assets, attracting retail investors and media attention that fueled Tesla’s meteoric rise. Today, that same persona is perceived as a liability, a source of distraction and reputational damage that could derail the company’s long-term viability.

The stakes could not be higher. The electric vehicle market is entering a phase of maturity and brutal competition, with Chinese manufacturers flooding Europe and Asia with low-cost alternatives, and legacy automakers like Ford, GM, and Volkswagen ramping up production of EV fleets backed by strong institutional experience and robust infrastructure.

In this environment, Tesla can no longer rely on hype and Musk’s star power alone. It needs consistent leadership, clear strategy, and a full-time CEO committed to its mission and its operations.

Whether Musk will comply remains to be seen. Historically, he has bristled at demands for accountability, often framing them as attacks on innovation and entrepreneurial freedom. But the tone of the letter suggests that major shareholders are prepared to escalate their campaign if necessary.

If Musk refuses to increase his involvement, or if the board refuses to enforce the requested changes, investors could push for a broader shareholder revolt, or even legal action, to enforce governance standards and protect the company’s future.

As the electric vehicle revolution enters its next chapter, one thing is becoming clear: Tesla’s survival may depend less on Musk’s genius and more on his discipline. The era of the part-time CEO may be over. And unless Musk accepts the new reality and recommits to Tesla’s core business, he could soon find himself on the wrong side of the shareholders who once idolized him.