Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla, has expressed concerns that U.S. exporters, including itself, could face negative consequences if other nations retaliate against trade tariffs imposed by Donald Trump.

Musk, a known supporter of the former president, has been actively involved in efforts to cut down federal government spending.

However, in an official letter addressed to the U.S. trade representative, Tesla stated that while it “supports” fair trade, it fears that American exporters are “exposed to disproportionate impacts” if foreign governments respond with countermeasures.

The letter coincided with a White House event where Trump pledged to purchase a Tesla as a gesture of support for Musk.

Since the letter was unsigned, it remains unclear who within Tesla authored it or whether Musk was aware of its contents.

Tesla’s stock has declined by 40% since the beginning of the year. While some critics argue that Musk’s association with Trump is damaging the brand’s reputation, market experts suggest that the drop is largely driven by concerns over Tesla’s ability to meet production goals and a decline in sales over the past year.

The letter also mentioned that Tesla is actively restructuring its supply chain to increase reliance on domestic suppliers for its vehicles and battery components, reducing dependence on international sources.

“None the less,” the letter cautioned, “even with aggressive localisation of the supply chain, certain parts and components are difficult or impossible to source within the US.”

Trump has implemented an additional 20% tariff on all Chinese imports, prompting China—Tesla’s second-largest market—to retaliate with tariffs of its own, including on automobiles.

“For example, past trade actions by the United States have resulted in immediate reactions by the targeted countries, including increased tariffs on EVs imported into those countries,” the letter reads.

Additionally, both the European Union and Canada have issued warnings about implementing countermeasures in response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, which recently went into effect.

In recent weeks, protests have erupted at Tesla showrooms, with demonstrators voicing opposition to Musk’s role in Trump’s administration. Musk currently heads the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a position focused on cost-cutting measures.

During a White House event earlier this week, Trump, seated in the driver’s seat of a red Tesla he claimed he would purchase, stated that protesters disrupting Tesla’s operations should be classified as domestic terrorists.

Trump condemned the demonstrations, saying they were “harming a great American company,” and warned that anyone resorting to violence against Tesla would “go through hell.”

In a major legal setback for the Trump administration, two federal judges have ordered the temporary reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal workers who were recently dismissed from multiple agencies.

The rulings, issued on Thursday, determined that the terminations violated established legal procedures.

In San Francisco, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, lacked the authority to approve the mass layoffs. Meanwhile, in Baltimore, U.S. District Judge James Bredar found that the administration failed to comply with the legal requirement of providing a 60-day notice for large-scale dismissals.

As a result, Bredar’s ruling halted the firings and ordered the affected workers to be reinstated.

The Trump administration is appealing Alsup’s ruling, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the court orders unconstitutional and an overreach into executive powers.

“The Trump administration will immediately fight back against this absurd and unconstitutional order,” Leavitt stated.

The legal battle follows lawsuits filed by labor unions and nonprofit organizations, which argue that the mass terminations were illegal and disrupted essential government services, particularly in veterans’ care and public land management. These groups claim that the layoffs were part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce without proper oversight.

Alsup’s ruling specifically targeted six federal agencies: Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Treasury. These agencies were ordered to offer reinstatement to employees dismissed around mid-February.

The judge criticized the administration for attempting to bypass regulations on workforce reductions by targeting probationary employees—newer workers who lack full civil service protections.

Probationary employees are particularly vulnerable, as they typically cannot appeal their terminations. Since Trump took office, at least 24,000 of these workers have reportedly been let go, according to the lawsuit. However, the government has not confirmed this figure.

“These mass firings were not just an attack on government agencies and their ability to function—they were a direct assault on public lands, wildlife, and the rule of law,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Trump administration has defended the terminations, arguing that they were based on individual performance reviews rather than constituting mass layoffs requiring specific legal procedures. However, Alsup questioned this justification, noting that some employees had received positive performance evaluations just months before their dismissals.

“It is a sad day when our government fires good employees and falsely claims it was due to performance,” Alsup said. “That should not happen in this country.”

As legal proceedings continue, approximately 200,000 probationary federal employees—including about 15,000 in California—are temporarily protected from dismissal. These workers, spanning roles from fire prevention to veterans’ care, now await further court decisions on their employment status.