Yes, Tesla employees publicly called for Elon Musk to stop serving as CEO—but the May 2025 open letter was not a formal company action. It was a campaign by a group of current and former employees, not a binding workforce vote, board resolution, or announcement that Musk would leave. The employees argued that Musk’s public and political activity was hurting Tesla’s brand and demand; that was their assessment, not proof that he alone caused the company’s sales problems.
What Tesla employees actually did
In late April and May 2025, a group of current and former Tesla employees published an open letter through a campaign called Tesla Employees Against Elon. Its request was that Tesla move forward without Musk as CEO. Matthew LaBrot, a Tesla staff program manager identified in coverage as a central organizer, created the campaign website on April 24, according to The Independent’s May 8, 2025 report. The letter became public in May.
This was a public appeal, not an internal corporate memo or a formal process for removing a chief executive. Calling it an “official request” is accurate only in the limited sense that employees formally stated their position in an open letter. The reporting does not establish that Tesla’s board accepted the demand, that employees held a binding vote, or that the company initiated a CEO transition.
What the letter argued
The signatories presented themselves as trying to protect Tesla, not reject its products or mission. They argued that Tesla’s engineering, production, service, and delivery operations were not the central problem. In their view, demand and brand perception had weakened because Musk’s public conduct and political activity had become liabilities for the company.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The letter also challenged the idea that Musk could address the problem simply by saying he would refocus on Tesla. The employees’ position was that his public actions themselves were damaging the brand, not merely that he was spending too little time at the company. Those are the campaign’s claims and interpretation; they should not be read as an independent assessment of Tesla’s product quality or proof of the cause of its sales performance. Electrek’s May 11 coverage summarizes the letter and its claims about demand and Model Y inventory: Electrek.
Why Musk’s politics entered the dispute
In early 2025, Musk became a highly visible figure associated with the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The employee campaign argued that his political profile was distracting from Tesla and alienating some customers. The conflict was therefore not only about management time; it was also about the extent to which Tesla’s public image had become tied to Musk personally.
Rank #2
In late May, Musk said his scheduled government work was nearing its end. Separately, an investor-related letter reportedly urged Tesla’s board to require at least 40 hours of Musk’s work each week at Tesla as a condition of a future CEO compensation package. That investor pressure was distinct from the employees’ open letter and did not itself remove Musk. NBC Chicago’s May 2025 report covered the government-work timeline and the separate investor demand.
What Tesla’s sales figures do—and do not—show
Coverage of the protest cited a 9% decline in Tesla’s U.S. first-quarter 2025 sales while overall U.S. electric-vehicle sales rose about 10%. Those figures indicate real pressure on Tesla in that period, but they do not identify a single cause. Tesla pointed to complications associated with the Model Y production changeover; employees countered that newly produced Model Ys were accumulating in inventory. The inventory point was the employees’ claim, not independently established inventory data in the available reporting.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Several explanations can overlap: a production transition, an aging or relatively narrow model lineup, competition, pricing and financing conditions, changes in incentives, regional market trends, and reactions to Musk’s political activity or public image. The open letter offers an insider perspective on the last of these, but it does not prove that Musk caused the sales decline or that other factors were immaterial.
What is known about Matthew LaBrot’s firing
Reports described LaBrot as a Tesla employee of more than five years and a staff program manager involved in sales and delivery training. He was also presented as a Tesla supporter who believed that criticizing Musk was necessary to defend the company’s mission. LaBrot said Tesla fired him after he helped create and publicize the protest campaign.
Rank #4
That account should remain attributed to him. Business Insider Germany’s report and The Independent’s coverage recount his claim; the available reporting does not independently establish Tesla’s stated reason for the termination. The campaign’s X account was also reported suspended, but the reason for the suspension and who made the decision were not established.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Who can actually remove Tesla’s CEO?
An employee letter can make dissent visible and put reputational pressure on a company, but it does not appoint or remove a CEO. That authority rests with Tesla’s board. Shareholders can influence governance through the rights available to them, including votes and pressure on directors, but the investor-related time-commitment letter was separate from the employee campaign.
| Group | Action in this episode | What that action can do |
|---|---|---|
| Current and former employees | Published an open letter asking Tesla to proceed without Musk as CEO | Publicly state a position and apply reputational pressure; not directly remove the CEO |
| Investors or shareholders | Separately raised concerns about Musk’s time commitment and governance | Influence the company through shareholder and governance channels; this was not the employee letter |
| Tesla’s board | No board removal action is established by the reporting on the employee protest | Holds formal authority over CEO appointment and removal |
How representative was the protest?
The available reporting establishes that a group of current and former employees took part. It does not establish that most Tesla employees opposed Musk, that the signatories represented the workforce as a whole, or that a union or shareholder body endorsed the letter. Without a verified signatory list and method of verification, the campaign should not be treated as a company-wide vote.
What Tesla and Musk said about the letter
The available coverage does not provide a substantive direct Tesla response to the employee letter itself. That absence does not establish agreement, approval, or retaliation. It also does not change the distinction between a public employee appeal and a formal board decision.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
