Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Edited by: Fern Sidman

The political firestorm surrounding billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk is now reverberating through New York City’s financial corridors. According to a report that appeared on Wednesday in The New York Post, prominent Democratic officials in the city — led by Brooklyn Councilman Justin Brannan — are pushing to divest nearly $1.2 billion in city pension funds currently invested in Tesla, Musk’s electric vehicle giant.

Brannan, who is running for New York City Comptroller, has made the divestment from Tesla a centerpiece of his campaign, framing it not only as a political rebuke of Musk’s growing influence but also as a financial imperative to protect city retirees.

“Elon Musk is deadly for democracy, and his companies are corrosive for our portfolio,” Brannan declared, as quoted by The New York Post.

Brannan is also using the pledge to fundraise, signaling a growing willingness among progressive Democrats to challenge Musk — once hailed as a clean energy pioneer — over his evolving political affiliations and expanding influence in federal governance.

Musk, once lauded by the left for revolutionizing the electric vehicle industry and accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, has seen his image shift dramatically in progressive circles. As The New York Post report noted, this transformation is largely due to his vocal support for President Trump, his role in leading the controversial Department of Government Efficiency, and his aggressive criticisms of federal agencies and public sector spending.

In particular, Musk’s involvement in efforts to cut federal funding, including resources connected to New York City’s own social service programs, has enraged city Democrats. Brannan accused Musk of “gutting the Social Security Administration” and of actively working to harm everyday New Yorkers.

“Musk is an unelected oligarch with way too much power – and he’s using it to screw over everyday New Yorkers,” Brannan said, according to The New York Post.

At the heart of this controversy is the New York City pension system, one of the largest public retirement funds in the country, and managed by the city comptroller’s office. Tesla has long been one of its high-profile holdings, with approximately $1.2 billion invested in the company’s stock.

Despite Tesla’s reputation for green innovation, Brannan argued that the company’s stock volatility and Musk’s behavior make it an unacceptable risk for city workers and retirees.

“This is simply not someone the City of New York should be doing business with,” Brannan stated. In a campaign fundraising email, he went further:  “Your hard-earned pension dollars should not be subject to the whims of a power-mad unelected oligarch, especially when it’s not even good for your wallets.”

While Tesla stock is known for its wild swings, it has delivered massive returns over the long term. According to the report in The New York Post, the 5-year total return on Tesla shares is an astonishing 726.90%. Even with a 31.06% decline year-to-date, the company’s long-term gains have benefited pension portfolios significantly. Over the last 12 months alone, Tesla posted a total return of 61.26%.

Not everyone is buying into Brannan’s narrative. New York State Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar blasted the move as blatant political opportunism.

“It is ironic that Tesla would find itself at the end of the Democrats’ sword, the people who’ve preached the cause of clean energy,” Kassar told The New York Post. “Of course, it’s pandering.”

Kassar’s criticism reflects a broader frustration among conservatives — and some centrists — that environmental progress is now being subordinated to ideological purity tests, with financial decisions being made on political rather than fiduciary grounds.

Indeed, for years, Tesla was championed by progressives as a model of what climate-conscious capitalism could look like. Now, the same lawmakers who once sang Musk’s praises are painting him as a danger to democracy — not because of his technology, but because of his personal politics and proximity to Trump’s orbit.

Elon Musk’s transformation into a polarizing political figure has been swift and dramatic. His ownership of X (formerly Twitter), frequent attacks on progressive institutions, and growing alliance with conservative power brokers — including public endorsements of Trump’s 2024 campaign — have made him a lightning rod for partisan debate.

With his growing role in government via the Department of Government Efficiency, which critics argue is a vehicle for slashing federal agencies and privatizing public services, Musk is increasingly being viewed as an ideological actor, not just a businessman, as was explained in The New York Post report.

Brannan’s efforts to weaponize the city’s pension portfolio against Musk reflect this shifting dynamic. No longer is Tesla simply a symbol of clean energy — it is now, in the eyes of some Democrats, a financial pipeline to a political adversary.

Brannan’s proposal faces significant procedural and political hurdles. Also noted in The New York Post report was that divesting pension funds is a complex process that requires the cooperation of multiple trustees and financial experts who must assess both the ethical case and the fiscal implications.

The race for New York City Comptroller could further elevate this issue, as Brannan uses the Tesla controversy to differentiate himself from rivals and energize progressive voters.

At stake is more than $1 billion in pension investments — and a broader debate over what role ideology should play in financial decision-making at the municipal level.

As Brannan sees it, the answer is clear: “Elon Musk’s Tesla is not just bad for our democracy. It’s bad for our bottom line.”

“Justin is confident we can find plenty of green investments in companies that haven’t lost almost half their value in the past 3 months and without oligarch, MAGA CEOs targeting the City’s money, Social Security and Medicare,” said a spokesperson for the Brannan campaign.

Tesla has long been a volatile but lucrative holding for institutional investors, and particularly for public pension funds like those managed by New York City. According to data cited by The New York Post from financecharts.com, $100 invested in Tesla five years ago would be worth $826.90 today — a staggering 726.9% return.

That long-term performance has helped bolster retirement accounts for thousands of municipal workers, from teachers to police officers. Yet, as The New York Post reported, recent market turbulence has given divestment advocates fresh ammunition. Tesla stock is down 31.06% year-to-date, raising red flags for officials who claim the company’s erratic valuation is no longer worth the risk.

Further compounding the concerns, Tesla’s vehicle sales dropped 1.1% in 2023, marking the company’s first annual decline in a dozen years. The problem is especially acute in Europe, where Tesla’s sales have plunged 49% in the first two months of 2024, even as the continent’s broader EV market continues to grow, according to data from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association.

While Brannan continues to press the case for divestment, the power to act doesn’t lie solely with the city comptroller. As The New York Post report noted, each of the five city pension funds has its own board of trustees. The comptroller manages and advises on investments but cannot unilaterally divest assets.

Nevertheless, current Comptroller Brad Lander, who is running for mayor in 2025, acknowledged on Tuesday that Tesla has been on his radar for years.

“We have had our eyes on Tesla for a long time,” Lander said. “Even when the stock was rising, I was concerned the company’s board lacked independence.”

The New York Post also reported that Lander emphasized that his office has engaged in proxy voting and shareholder activism to push for a more independent board, but said the recent political and financial turbulence surrounding Musk and Tesla “amplifies those concerns.”

“We are considering all of our options,” he added, suggesting a formal reassessment of the city’s Tesla holdings may be imminent.

At the heart of the movement to divest from Tesla is not just a financial critique, but a deep unease with Elon Musk’s political affiliations and outsized influence.

Once a darling of the left for his pioneering work in clean energy, Musk has shifted rightward in recent years, becoming a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and one of the driving forces behind the controversial Department of Government Efficiency, which has been linked to efforts to cut federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

 

Councilman Brannan described Musk as a “power-mad unelected oligarch” who is using his wealth to undermine New York City’s fiscal and social stability.

“Musk is deadly for democracy,” Brannan told The New York Post.

“He’s gutting the Social Security Administration, cutting critical funding for New York City, and now he’s leveraging his vast wealth and status as one of President Trump’s biggest donors.”

Brannan has also launched campaign fundraising appeals centered on the Tesla divestment issue, hoping to rally progressive voters who are increasingly skeptical of Musk’s growing influence in both business and government.

Republicans and conservatives, meanwhile, have fired back at what they see as political hypocrisy and opportunism.

State GOP Chairman Ed Cox lambasted the Democrats’ efforts to punish Tesla as “performative politics” that reveal the left’s real priorities.

“Tesla is one of the great EV manufacturers. They’re attacking an environmentally friendly car company,” Cox told The New York Post. “It’s not about environmentalism. It’s about power and control.”

Likewise, Conservative Party Chair Jerry Kassar questioned the sincerity of Democrats who once hailed Tesla as a cornerstone of the green revolution, only to turn on it the moment Musk’s politics shifted.

“It is ironic that Tesla would find itself at the end of the Democrats’ sword,” Kassar said. “Of course, it’s pandering.”

While Brannan’s Democratic primary opponent Mark Levine declined to comment, the issue is rapidly becoming a litmus test in city politics — a proxy battle between progressive purity and financial pragmatism, between ideological alignment and fiduciary responsibility.

With over $1.2 billion in taxpayer-backed pension funds on the line, the stakes are high. And while Tesla remains one of the most innovative and impactful companies of the last decade, its political entanglements and financial volatility have made it a flashpoint in the intersection of investment, ideology, and governance.

Whether or not the city ultimately divests from Tesla, the debate reveals a new era in public finance — one in which values-based investing will collide with raw market returns, and where CEOs’ politics may matter just as much as their products.