Anti-Nazi graffiti was sprayed on a Tesla dealership in The Hague, Netherlands, in February. A Tesla dealership in Toulose, France, was burned down in March in what is believed to be a politically motivated arson. In London, the artist group Everyone hates Elon smashed a Tesla – one that was already destined for the scrapyard – with a sledgehammer in April.
At the beginning of 2025, there was a growing surge of protests globally against Tesla, Elon Musk's electric car company. Some have coordinated under the slogan #TeslaTakedown, which advocates tactics such as divestment, picketing, protests and other methods that disclude property damage.
There have been anti-Musk demonstrations from Europe to Oceania, adding to protests across the U.S.
Musk has caused outrage with his “chainsaw to democracy” and his effective coup d'état in the U.S. government. The previous article in this series discussed how Musk is becoming a global information overlord, reflecting a corporate dominance that fans the flames of global anger.
In what follows, we look at the worldwide resistance to the man, so far mainly focused on Tesla. One pressing question is how the outrage might and could spread to his other business interests, not least his largest interest: SpaceX.
Anti-Musk protest impact
The anger at Musk is causing sales figures for his electric cars and Tesla's global valuation to fall. European sales crashed 40% in 2025.
Tesla has noticed. Official company documents acknowledge that Musk's actions are hurting both profits and the company's reputation.
Further actions are planned, and divestment is a growing part of the campaign. New York is one place leading the way, where a group of state senators and assembly members are urging the state to remove Tesla from state pension investments.
New York state lawmakers are also pushing for new regulations to shut down Tesla dealerships across the state.
The #TeslaTakedown website has created a guide for how people in their towns and locations, everywhere, can organize divestment action through pension funds.
In the face of these protests, Musk has finally pledged to reduce his role within the U.S. government. To be clear, the protests caused this blow. Officially, his unelected role in the U.S. was only supposed to last 130 days in any case. Yet whether it's Trump or Musk, this administration doesn't play by official rules.
Without the protests, Musk would probably have stayed in office longer. But even though he will no longer be Trump's obvious right-hand man, he seems likely to have kept the president's ear after his massive donation.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Musk gave Trump the incredible sum of nearly $300 million. In return, Musk has secured billions of dollars in public funding for his companies, including SpaceX and xAI, through U.S. government spending, especially on defense contracts.
Looking at soft and hard power is a useful tool for assessing the impact of the protests. Musk standing literally behind Trump in the Oval Office, acting like a puppet master, is a massive display of soft power. His hard power is the way he influences policy, controls spending (via DOGE), gains contracts (for his businesses), and exerts his control over his multi-billion dollar corporations.
The anti-Musk protests have affected his soft power. Musk has less social capital after the protests, although his astronomical wealth and hard power are still soaring. Musk's biggest asset is SpaceX, which is primarily based on satellite communications. To fully challenge Musk, the further economic ascent of this company must be stopped.
Challenging SpaceX
SpaceX is Musk's biggest asset, yet has largely escaped the wrath of worldwide protests. Each week, a group of protesters demonstrate outside the SpaceX office in Seattle.
There have also been actions against SpaceX's headquarters in Los Angeles. Compared to the massive outrage against Tesla, these actions are among the few directed against SpaceX or any of Musk's other companies. Nevertheless, the #TeslaTakedown campaign is planning to prepare actions against his other companies next.
Protesting against SpaceX has logistical issues compared to Tesla. For one, fewer people know about it. It has no showrooms. It has fewer offices and none outside the U.S. Even if people can buy an internet contract, the main deals to date are with countries, especially the U.S. government, which makes it difficult to boycott.
One option for activists around the world could be taken by significant investors like Baillie Gifford and Sequoia Capital, which have offices around the world.
Resisting space monopolisation
SpaceX monopolises the telecommunications market with its low-orbit satellites, which can provide high-quality encrypted services. The company has around 10 times more satellites than its nearest competitor, Eutelsat. In response, Eutelsat, with the support of the European Union, Chinese companies such as Qianfan, and Amazon want to increase the number of their satellites. These will attack Musk's monopoly.
Military defence companies such as Thales, Airbus and Leonardo also want to challenge SpaceX for supremacy.
However, these corporate challenges are more about sharing the spoils of dominance with Musk. What we need is the abolition of dominance of all global corporate powers.
Many countries welcome the expansion of SpaceX's telecommunications services, yet there is also resistance. For example, Namibia has ordered SpaceX to cease operations in the country. Cameroon took a similar action. The Canadian province of Ontario has likewise cancelled a high-speed internet contract worth $68 million.
Brazil is another country that has defied Musk's satellite services and taken action to restrict his social media company X.
The location of SpaceX's infrastructure in space, rather than in office or business premises, protects it from direct or protest action. Nevertheless, its location in orbit could be contested in the future.
Currently, SpaceX can only offer internet access to a handful of customers per square kilometre — not enough to dominate the $1 trillion communications market. SpaceX is well suited for communications in remote areas, not the cities where most people live. Forbes suggests this could mean the company is grossly overvalued.
One solution to this problem is to lower the orbit of the satellites, which currently fly about 500 km (300 miles) above Earth.
International laws regulating satellite traffic were largely created in the 1960s and 70s, long before corporations ruled the skies.
That means the battles over permits and regulations are likely to get more heated. SpaceX will want lower altitudes, and this is also a space to oppose Musk's plans for dominance.
Musk's ever-growing entrepreneurial power makes him the new figurehead of the 1%. This means that global opposition to him is crucial for the struggle for global social justice. This only adds to calls in the U.S. that resisting Musk’s power is a top priority.
But opposing Musk on a global scale also raises dilemmas. It is not enough to challenge Musk only enough that he shares the spoils of global dominance with others from the 1%. The bigger question for humanity is how we can transform satellites, social media, the internet and things more broadly into spaces where everyone has access to and that we all manage together for the common good.
