A surprising number of Americans approve of the rash of violence against Teslas amid Elon Musk’s work helping President Donald Trump with the Department of Government Efficiency.
Self-identified atheists, Democrats, young people, and supporters of the policies of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are the most likely to approve of the violence and the least likely to consider it “domestic terrorism.”
Arsonists have hurled Molotov cocktails into Teslas and Tesla dealerships—not just in the U.S. but also in European countries like France and Germany—as protesters hold banners reading, “Burn a Tesla: Save Democracy.” Activists have also published a map claiming to show the location of every Tesla owner across the U.S. The website with this map turns the user’s cursor into a Molotov cocktail icon.
The attacks seem coordinated to terrify Tesla owners, convince Americans not to buy Tesla vehicles, and attempt to stop Musk and DOGE. Attorney General Pam Bondi has denounced the attacks as “domestic terrorism,” and Americans are more likely to agree than disagree with that characterization.
The victims of the vandalism may have no political connection to Musk or DOGE—they merely own (or in the case of dealerships, sell) cars made by the company Musk founded.
RMG Research conducted a poll on behalf of the Napolitan Institute to discover Americans’ opinions on the attacks.
The poll began by asking how closely respondents had been following the Tesla attacks. Most respondents (66%) said they had been following the story “very closely” (24%) or “somewhat closely” (42%), while about a quarter (23%) said they had been following it “not very closely.” Only 11% said they had followed the story “not at all closely.”
“While it’s always difficult to see violence and property attacks, are the attacks on Tesla and Tesla vehicles justified?” the pollsters asked.
The vast majority of respondents (70%) said, “No,” while 11% said they were not sure. Nearly one-fifth, however, said “Yes” (19%).
Respondents who live in high population density areas (53%) proved most likely to say the attacks were justified, followed by self-described atheists (45%) and respondents who say they think about politics every day or nearly every day (41%). Younger respondents (ages 18-34) also proved more likely to call the attacks justified (36%), as did supporters of Bernie Sanders’ policies (32%), and Democrats (31%).
Republicans (13%), independents (14%), supporters of Trump’s policies (9%), and self-described Bible-believing Christians (13%) proved less likely to support the attacks.
When asked, “Is it fair to call the attacks on Tesla and Tesla vehicles a form of domestic terrorism,” more Americans said “Yes” (46%) than “No” (39%), while 15% said they were not sure. Self-identified Republicans (68%) were most likely to say “Yes.” Those who identified as atheists were most likely to say “No” (74%), followed by those who said they supported Sanders’ policies (69%). Most Democrats disagreed with calling the attacks domestic terrorism (56%).
RMG Research’s Scott Rasmussen has discovered a worldview divide between what he calls “the Elite 1%”—Americans who live in densely populated areas, make more than $150,000 annually, and have an advanced degree—and “Main Street Americans”—who do not fit any of these three criteria.
Main Street Americans proved more likely to consider the attacks terrorism (46%), yet 37% didn’t consider it terrorism, while Elites/Elite adjacent Americans proved roughly split (45% terrorism vs. 43% not terrorism).
Main Street Americans also proved more likely to say the attacks are not justified (73% vs. 16% who say they were justified). While most Elites agreed (66%) the attacks were not justified, more of them said the attacks were justified (24%).
Elite opinions often line up with government employees’ views (59% said the attacks were not justified, 30% that they were), while Main Street views align with private sector workers’ views (71% said the attacks weren’t justified, 19% that they were).
More than a fifth of respondents (21%) said that it is “very” or “somewhat likely” they would consider buying a Tesla as their next car. Perhaps as a result of the attacks, more than half (53%) said it is “not at all likely” they’d consider a Tesla, while 20% said it is “not very likely” they would do so.
RMG Research surveyed 1,000 registered voters, with the sample weighted to reflect America’s demographics, on March 26 and 27. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.
On Monday, 26 state financial officers sent a letter to Bondi about the anti-Tesla violence, describing it as “domestic terrorism” and explaining how the attacks have harmed the public pension funds of state employees, such as teachers, first responders, and police officers.
“These attacks are not just politically charged, they undermine the financial well-being of the public servants who dedicate their lives to the betterment of our society and affect the long-term financial growth of our state pension systems and other state treasury investments,” the state financial officers wrote. “Many state investment funds, including public pensions that hold the retirement savings of our public schoolteachers, first responders, and police officers, are invested in Tesla for good reason.”
“As of Dec. 31, 2024, Tesla employs over 125,000 workers, and, before these incidents began in late January 2025, was valued at roughly $1.3 trillion and trading at over $400 per share,” they wrote. “Since these attacks started, Tesla’s stock has plummeted.”
“It is unconscionable that the financial well-being of our public schoolteachers and police officers and all beneficiaries of our state treasury funds—to say nothing of those whose personal property has been vandalized—has become collateral damage of rage politics and violent actions,” the financial officers wrote.
Tesla Letter_DOJ 03-31-25Download