Ross Gerber Drops Bombshell: Claims Elon Musk May Be Behind Shocking Tesla CEO Ousting Report

In a plot twist worthy of a Silicon Valley thriller, prominent Tesla investor Ross Gerber has suggested that the explosive Wall Street Journal article reporting that the Tesla board is considering replacing Elon Musk as CEO may have been orchestrated by none other than Musk himself. Gerber’s theory—floated in an interview with Newsweek—has sent ripples through the financial and tech communities, raising fresh questions about Musk’s strategic intentions, his grip on Tesla, and the growing pressures that could be reshaping the future of the electric vehicle giant.

The Wall Street Journal report, published earlier this week, cited unnamed sources claiming that Tesla’s board of directors had initiated quiet conversations with executive search firms in recent weeks to evaluate potential successors to Musk. The motivation?

Mounting backlash over Musk’s increasingly visible involvement in U.S. politics—particularly his leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Donald Trump—and a corresponding collapse in public perception and stock performance.

Musk responded with a characteristically aggressive post on X, formerly Twitter, where he called the report “an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS” and a “DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE.” He accused the Journal of publishing the story without including what he claimed was a preemptive denial from Tesla’s board.

Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm also denied the allegations in a public statement, reaffirming Musk’s position and the board’s confidence in his leadership.

But Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management—and a longtime Tesla bull—painted a very different picture in his interview with Newsweek. “This news is basically because Elon is probably looking for someone to replace him at Tesla,” he said bluntly.

Gerber speculates that Musk may have leaked or helped shape the article in order to float the idea of a transition in a way that he can control the narrative.

The reasoning behind this potential 4D chess move? According to Gerber, it’s about optics, control, and long-term positioning. Musk, who has become a lightning rod for controversy due to his political affiliations, leadership style, and hyperactive public persona, may be recognizing the growing liability his visibility poses to Tesla’s brand.

By subtly signaling the possibility of stepping back from the CEO role—while retaining influence behind the scenes as board chair—Musk could insulate the company from political fallout without relinquishing control.

Gerber suggests that a confidant like Tesla co-founder JB Straubel could step in as a visible, steady CEO while Musk transitions to a less public role. “That’s exactly what needs to happen,” Gerber said. “Elon’s not all of the sudden not going to get control. He needs a visible CEO.”

The arrangement, in his view, would give Tesla enough “marketing separation” from Musk to ease consumer backlash while allowing Musk to focus on his expanding interests—such as xAI, SpaceX, and ongoing political ventures—without sacrificing the ability to steer Tesla’s strategic direction.

The strategy may already be working. Following the uproar around the CEO replacement story, Musk announced during Tesla’s April earnings call that he would be scaling back his involvement with DOGE and rededicating time to Tesla. He noted, however, that he still planned to spend a “day or two per week” working with the federal department, signaling that his political endeavors remain a priority.

Tesla’s stock, which had dropped sharply earlier in the year—falling 25% since Trump’s inauguration amid boycotts and widespread vandalism of Tesla properties—bounced slightly after news of Musk’s partial return. Still, investors remain cautious, with many interpreting recent events as signs of an internal identity crisis: Can Tesla continue to thrive with Musk at the center, or must it evolve beyond his brand to survive?

Gerber, who once held over 250,000 Tesla shares, dumped $60 million worth of stock in 2024, citing growing concerns about Musk’s leadership and the board’s unwillingness to challenge him. However, in this latest twist, Gerber sees the possibility of a calculated and orderly transition—one potentially orchestrated by Musk himself. “Investors want to see how Elon can still be a driving force,” he said, “but with a less visible approach.”

While Gerber’s theory may sound conspiratorial to some, it aligns with Musk’s known behavior and history of manipulating media cycles to his advantage. Musk has long been a master of narrative control, using social media and provocative headlines to shape perception, stir markets, and distract from less favorable developments.

Planting a story about his own potential ousting—then reacting with outrage—could serve multiple purposes: testing investor sentiment, gauging board loyalty, and even negotiating the terms of a future shift in leadership.

Critics are split on whether such a move would be brilliant strategy or dangerous gamesmanship. Some argue that Musk, whose empire includes SpaceX, Neuralink, X, and xAI, is stretched too thin and needs to offload responsibilities before key ventures collapse under mismanagement. Others warn that removing Musk, or even appearing to reduce his involvement, could destabilize Tesla’s identity and alienate the loyal customer base and investors who see Musk as the face of the brand.

The company’s recent performance adds urgency to the debate. Tesla’s earnings dropped a staggering 71% in the first quarter of 2024, and year-over-year revenue declined by 9%. Musk’s role in the Trump administration has done little to soothe investor anxiety, as protests and boycotts continue to grow both in the U.S. and abroad.

Not even Trump’s bizarre effort to turn the White House lawn into a temporary Tesla showroom could stem the tide of public dissatisfaction.

Against this backdrop, Gerber’s comments raise uncomfortable but essential questions: Is Tesla heading toward a carefully crafted leadership transition, or is this a chaotic unraveling masked by corporate spin? Is Musk’s denial a genuine rejection of false reporting, or a smokescreen for a deeper strategic pivot?

The Wall Street Journal, for its part, stands by its reporting. In a statement to Axios, the publication confirmed that Tesla was given the opportunity to comment before the story went to print—contradicting Musk’s claim that the board’s denial was ignored.

With Musk set to return to Tesla in May in a more focused capacity, the next few months will be critical. If the speculation proves correct, Tesla may soon unveil a new leadership structure designed to preserve Musk’s vision while shielding the company from the polarizing baggage that now follows him.

For now, Gerber’s shocking theory remains unproven—but the possibility that Musk himself seeded the narrative of his own downfall could be the boldest play in his already outrageous career.