Republican View – Tesla dealership attacks are acts of terrorism  

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of author Zachary Winn and are not representative of the thoughts or opinions of Tompkins Weekly. 

In late February, Ithaca’s Tesla charging station off Route 13 near Trader Joe’s was vandalized with swastikas, references to Hitler, and a sticker reading “Tesla is Fascist.” This incident appears to be part of a broader, nationwide campaign targeting Tesla dealerships, charging stations, and vehicles through vandalism and arson. Some Tesla dealerships have been shot at, and a website has emerged publishing the personal details of Tesla owners, offering to remove the information only if individuals prove they have sold their vehicles.

Such acts meet the definition of terrorism: the use of violence, intimidation, or threats to achieve a political or ideological goal. The intent behind this campaign seems clear—to tarnish Tesla’s brand, destabilize its stock value, and discourage vehicle ownership. Ultimately, it is a form of retribution against Elon Musk for his support of President Donald Trump and his role in the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The shift in media coverage of Tesla and Musk is striking. In the past, the public were encouraged to buy Teslas, purchases incentivized with government subsidies amid the looming ban of fossil fuel vehicle sales, for the sake of the environment. Celebrated as a visionary who revolutionized commercial space flight, mainstreamed electric vehicles, and contributed to carbon emissions reduction, Musk has now become a target of leftist ire. Many who previously championed his innovations now cheer on and rationalize these attacks. Is their hostility toward Musk based on genuine principles, or are they reflexively responding to media programming?

This wave of anti-Tesla hostility has not occurred in isolation. Protests at Tesla dealerships and charging stations have become more frequent, largely organized by a group called Indivisible. Though presenting itself as a grassroots movement, Indivisible receives significant funding from the Soros family and other high-profile donors. In Tompkins County, this group operates under the banner of Indivisible Tompkins and has staged demonstrations at prominent locations, such as the intersection near Wegmans at Route 13 and Clinton Street. Their banners and signs condemn Trump and Musk, consistent with their broader anti-MAGA agenda.

Many of these individuals have also participated in other protest movements, from Black Lives Matter to pro-Palestinian demonstrations and advocacy for Ukraine. While political activism is a fundamental right, the lack of a consistent ideological throughline in these protests suggests a reactionary mindset rather than a principled stance. More concerning is the growing normalization of intimidation tactics. A significant number of demonstrators wear masks—not just for lingering COVID concerns, but to conceal their identities, a tactic commonly associated with extremist groups throughout history.

The consequences of this campaign extend beyond Tesla. When individuals are targeted for their purchasing choices, it sets a dangerous precedent. If it is acceptable to harass and dox Tesla owners today, what group will be deemed unacceptable tomorrow? Political and ideological disagreements should be settled through debate and the democratic process, not through coercion and threats. Ironically, the average person having their vehicle vandalized is much more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican.

Furthermore, while criticism of public figures and corporations is a normal part of political discourse, resorting to vandalism, arson, and violence is not. Those engaging in these acts claim to stand against fascism, yet their methods—destruction of property, threats, and silencing dissent—mirror the very authoritarian tactics they claim to oppose.

The acts of violence and intimidation against Tesla and its owners warrant the kind of serious legal scrutiny that followed January 6th. If similar attacks were carried out against another business sector or demographic group, there would likely be widespread condemnation and immediate federal intervention. The lack of outrage from the left in response to these incidents suggest a troubling double standard.

Beyond legal ramifications, there is also the issue of media coverage. While some outlets have reported on the scale and coordination of these attacks, there has also been widespread celebration of them. When acts of political violence are selectively ignored or praised based on the perceived ideology of the perpetrators, public trust in the media erodes.

Ultimately, this campaign against Tesla is about more than just Elon Musk. It is about the broader willingness to employ mob tactics to enforce ideological conformity. Free societies are defined by open discourse and the ability of individuals to make choices without fear of retaliation. The response to these attacks will set an important precedent for how political violence is addressed moving forward.

Those who genuinely believe in democracy and civil discourse must be willing to condemn all forms of political intimidation, regardless of the target. Today, it is Tesla owners who face harassment; tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of favor with the leftist mob. If authorities fail to draw the line now, they risk normalizing a dangerous cycle of retribution that threatens the very foundations of society.