The Davis City Council on Tuesday will weigh whether to adopt a resolution that would end the city’s engagement with companies owned or controlled by Elon Musk and encourage the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to divest from those firms.
In a staff report dated Feb. 17, 2026, City Manager Daryel Dunston asked the council to provide direction to staff regarding the matter, including a proposed resolution.
The proposal comes after members of the public approached the council urging it to divest from companies associated with Musk.
According to the staff report, “The City Council has been approached by members of the public to adopt a resolution to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
The council instructed staff to prepare a draft resolution for consideration, and staff made minor revisions to ensure it aligned with existing city standards and procedures.
The draft resolution, titled “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” outlines a series of findings and proposed actions.
In its preamble, the resolution states, “WHEREAS, the City of Davis is committed to promoting transparency, accountability, public safety, and democratic governance.”
It further alleges that Musk, “through his companies Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, Starlink, xAI, and The Boring Company, has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
The draft also states that “numerous investigations and lawsuits have been initiated by federal and international bodies regarding deceptive business practices, securities fraud, and misrepresentation of product capabilities by these companies.”
The resolution includes language asserting that “Elon Musk has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
It concludes the findings by stating that “(the) use of products of Musk-controlled companies does not align with the values of the City of Davis.”
If adopted, the resolution would bar the city from entering into new contracts or purchasing agreements with companies owned or controlled by Musk.
It also provides that the city: “Shall not enter into any new contracts, subsidies, or purchasing agreements with companies owned or controlled by Elon Musk, including Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI, The Boring Company and Tesla RoboTaxis.”
It adds, “To the extent that the City currently contracts with Musk-controlled entities it shall terminate such agreements where feasible and legally permissible.”
The resolution would further direct the city to refrain from using Musk-controlled platforms and services, stating that it: “Shall prohibit paying for the use of Musk-controlled platforms and services (such as X and xAI) in official City communications, operations, and IT infrastructure.”
In addition, the draft says the city: “Shall consider urging CalPERS to exclude Tesla stock and related securities from actively managed state and municipal investments.”
The measure would moreover require additional scrutiny of proposed business activity involving Musk-affiliated entities.
It notes that the city: “Shall exercise due diligence for any proposed business activity, project, or facility involving Musk-affiliated companies within the City of Davis. This shall include not contracting with lobbyists who share Musk-affiliated businesses as clients.”
The resolution concludes by declaring that the city “joins other jurisdictions in calling for ethical governance of public funds and invites other local, regional, and state agencies to adopt similar non-engagement strategies.”
According to the staff report, there is no immediate budgetary impact.
It states, “There is no immediate fiscal impact, as the City does not currently have investments in Musk-controlled companies.” (emphasis added).
However, the report cautions that “the resolution would limit the ability of the City to make future investments, although staff cannot predict the fiscal impact.”
The item is coming directly to the council. The report notes, “This item is coming directly to the City Council, as per direction from the Council.” It adds, “The Fiscal Commission has discussed the issue indirectly, as they have been discussing the City’s socially responsible investment policy.”
The council’s options, as outlined in the staff report, are to “adopt the resolution, with or without modifications,” “direct staff to take it to the Fiscal Commission for feedback, provide analysis and return to City Council with a recommendation,” or “decline to adopt the resolution.”
The resolution is scheduled for consideration at the Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
If approved, it would represent a formal policy decision to end city engagement with Musk-controlled companies and position Davis among jurisdictions seeking to align public investments and contracts with stated values concerning labor practices, regulatory compliance and democratic governance.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“According to the staff report, “The City Council has been approached by members of the public to adopt a resolution to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
So what?
“(the) use of products of Musk-controlled companies does not align with the values of the City of Davis.”
So in turn do the tens of thousands of Davis residents who do use Musk products not align with the values of the City of Davis? So does that include anyone driving a Tesla, using Starlink, xAI or posting on X?
“The draft also states, “numerous investigations and lawsuits have been initiated by federal and international bodies regarding deceptive business practices, securities fraud, and misrepresentation of product capabilities by these companies.”
The same can be said of almost any huge corporation. Is the City going to look into many of those companies too?
“Elon Musk has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
Same can be said of Google, Apple, Facebook and many other institutions who have been accused of trying to sway public opinion using their platforms. Are they also going to be boycotted by the City? Then there’s China, does the City use any products or services originating in China? Does the City engage with companies that use Chinese products? You can see where this can go because China has a history of labor atrocities and other such corporate evils.
This is all so crazy and I think it all comes down to Musk aligned with Trump before he didn’t. Does anyone really think that if Musk had aligned with the left that we would be hearing any of this?
The Council needs to do the right thing and say NO to this on Tuesday.
Here’s a recent example of where Apple is accused is using its influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions. Is the City of Davis looking into boycotting Apple?
Google AI:
“In February 2026, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) raised concerns that Apple is rigging its Apple News app to favor left-leaning outlets and suppress conservative publications. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson warned that such curation, if inconsistent with consumer expectations or Apple’s terms, could violate federal, consumer-protection laws.
Key details of the allegations and investigation:
Targeted Curation Allegations: Reports suggest Apple News suppresses right-wing content, with one analysis finding that over 400 of 600 sampled stories came from left-leaning sources, this source reports.
FTC Warning: FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, stating that while the FTC is not the “speech police,” intentionally misleading consumers about content curation could violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Media Research Center Report: The allegations stem from a study by the Media Research Center, a conservative group, which claimed that popular right-leaning outlets like Fox News or the New York Post were missing from top stories.
Focus on Transparency: The FTC is investigating whether Apple’s actions constitute unfair or deceptive acts, particularly regarding potential omissions about how news is prioritized to users, according to PYMNTS.com.”
This is a Facebook post I made in late June:
“I was on the phone in the City of Davis parking lot. A short blond 40 or 50-something walks up to me and interrupts the phone call. He says, Tesla, Trumper, huh, well f*ck you. I was worried about a physical confrontation, but he walked away.
The contractor on the other side of the phone heard the transaction and said, “That was scary.” Are you a Trumper? I told her anything but that I had left the state to campaign for Harris. It was the Tesla that made him decide I was pro-Trump. She told me that she had heard that others had experienced similar incidents in Davis. I was speechless.”
Musk has had a falling out with Trump he may very well decide to help the Democrats in the midterms. Time will tell, but the political strategy this group seems to be taking is not something we want to encourage in Davis. This person might have been a lone wolf, but clearly, the trip from the parking lot to the city council chambers should be a safe one, no matter what your political leanings.
Much ado about nothing.
On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council is poised to spend public time and staff resources staging a symbolic struggle session against a single billionaire, despite acknowledging up front that the city has no current financial exposure to the companies it now wishes to theatrically banish.
This arose because a handful of far-left activists demanded a moral performance aligned with the outrage cycle of the moment. Council complied by instructing staff to draft a resolution that reads less like municipal governance and more like a Twitter thread with footnotes removed. How many times have I told the Council over the last 40 years: stay out of national politics, and stay out of international politics. We have reps for that. You deal with the local stuff.
The resolution asserts lofty commitments to transparency, safety, and democracy, then immediately abandons evidentiary discipline by stacking vague allegations, ongoing investigations, and ideological disapproval into a single accusatory pile of #$%^ without findings, adjudications, or relevance to Davis’s actual contracts or services.
It condemns a list of companies the city does not meaningfully use, invest in, or rely upon, while carefully noting that there is no immediate fiscal impact, a polite way of admitting the entire exercise is symbolic. But it did take up staff time. The same document then warns that future options may be restricted, without bothering to explain why deliberately narrowing the city’s flexibility could be considered good governance.
The resolution goes further, proposing that Davis police own its communications platforms, its hypothetical future partners, and even the lobbying clients of third parties, an extraordinary level of ideological filtering for a city struggling already with housing, roads, budgets, and basic service delivery.
Most revealing is the call to pressure CalPERS, a massive fiduciary institution bound by return obligations, to conform to Davis’s political signaling, as if we are not just an annoying flea. This is virtue politics, and much of the state isn’t as deeply blue, so what makes anyone think CalPERS will listen.
Nothing in this proposal improves city services. Nothing lowers costs. Nothing addresses a local problem. It simply announces that Davis would like credit for disapproving of the correct villain of the month, while conceding that doing so accomplishes nothing.
Please! We’ll have a new demon in a few months. Will we bend local fiscal responsibility again in response?
“Please! We’ll have a new demon in a few months. Will we bend local fiscal responsibility again in response?”
It has to be a new conservative leaning villain or I’ll bet the council won’t take action.