Tesla CEO Shake-Up: WSJ Bombshell and Tesla’s Denial"

On April 30, 2025, the Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell: Tesla’s board, rattled by Elon Musk’s political entanglements and a 50% stock plunge, was allegedly hunting for a new CEO. Citing unnamed “sources with knowledge,” the report sent Tesla’s stock tumbling 3.6% overnight. Musk and Tesla’s board fired back, slamming the story as “absolutely false.” Was this a reckless WSJ hit piece, or is Tesla hiding a succession crisis? One thing’s clear: the WSJ’s shadowy sourcing has sparked a firestorm.

Tesla CEO Shake-UP and The WSJ Bombshell -Tesla’s Denial

The WSJ claimed Tesla’s board, frustrated by Musk’s focus on the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Tesla’s declining performance, had contacted executive search firms to replace him as CEO. No named sources backed the report—just vague “sources with knowledge,” a flimsy foundation for such a market-moving claim. The story painted the board desperate to rein in Musk, whose political moves, including vocal support for Trump, have alienated some customers and investors.

Tesla didn’t hold back. Chair Robyn Denholm took to X, declaring, “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.” Musk himself blasted the WSJ on X, accusing them of an “EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS” for publishing despite Tesla’s denial. The stock dip partially recovered after the rebuttals, but the damage was done.

Why the Story Hit Hard

Elon Musk is Tesla. His vision propelled the company to a trillion-dollar valuation, but his larger-than-life persona also makes him a lightning rod. Tesla’s stock, down 50% since December 2024, is hypersensitive to Musk-related news. A 13% sales drop and 71% profit plunge in Q1 2025 and a surge in used Tesla sales from owners ditching the brand have fueled investor jitters. Musk’s political stances—backing Trump and right-leaning groups in Europe—haven’t helped. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called Musk’s political involvement a “code red situation” for Tesla, warning of a “fork in the road” for the CEO.

The WSJ’s reliance on unnamed sources is the real scandal here. “Sources with knowledge” could mean anything—or nothing. Without credible, verifiable evidence, the report smells of sensationalism, rushed to capitalize on Musk’s controversies. Musk’s accusation that the WSJ knowingly published a false story, despite Tesla’s pre-publication denial, puts their journalistic integrity on trial. As of May 1, 2025, the WSJ hasn’t retracted or clarified, doubling down on their murky sourcing.

This isn’t just about one article. Musk, like Trump, has long battled mainstream media, accusing outlets of bias and fabrication. Social Media influencers speculate that the board was quietly exploring other options to replace Musk, but @FinalTelegraph called the media out, "rumor of a Tesla CEO search is a deliberate liberal media hit job to undermine Musk’s leadership."

The lack of transparency from the WSJ only fuels skepticism, eroding trust in a once-venerable outlet. If they had solid sources, why hide them? If not, why publish?

What’s Next for Tesla?

Tesla’s stock has stabilized, but scars remain. The WSJ’s shadowy sources ignite controversy, leaving investors questioning the company’s future. But the question remains: Is Tesla hiding a CEO crisis? WSJ’s shadowy sources ignite controversy, leaving investors uncertain about the company’s future." This primes readers for the conclusion while strengthening the board, is being criticized for lacking independence (Musk’s brother Kimbal is a member, and Denholm recently sold $33.7M in stock), faces scrutiny over its ability to steer Tesla through choppy waters. The WSJ’s claim of board meetings to reassure investors suggests real tensions, even if the CEO search was fabricated.

The bigger question looms: Can Tesla thrive with Musk’s divided focus? His DOGE role and political firestorms aren’t going away. While no evidence supports a CEO search, the story forces Tesla to confront succession planning.

The WSJ’s report didn’t just rattle Tesla—it exposed a deeper crisis: a media landscape increasingly driven by sensationalism over substance. Whether a calculated hit piece or reckless speculation, this story throws fuel on the fire of distrust. Musk’s war with legacy media is no secret, but when billion-dollar stock moves hinge on shadowy “sources with knowledge,” the stakes are higher than ever.

Tesla’s board can deny a succession crisis all it wants—but if WSJ’s report was baseless, why was Tesla’s stock already primed for collapse? And if there’s truth beneath the smoke, then Musk’s grip on Tesla isn’t as ironclad as it seems.

One thing is certain: the media owes the public accountability. Wall Street Journal, show your sources—or admit you gambled on a market-shaking lie. Until then, the damage is done. The credibility war rages on.