Tesla faces more post-midterm scrutiny than SpaceX

By James Calloway

Tesla reported $28.046 billion in third-quarter revenue on October 20, while SpaceX reported $14.60 billion on October 21, according to 24/7 Wall St. The SpaceX figure included $7.60 billion from its Super Intelligence unit.

24/7 Wall St. said Democrats won the midterms, giving Congress subpoena power, meaning authority to compel testimony and documents, over Elon Musk. The source argues that Tesla now sits closer to political scrutiny than SpaceX.

24/7 Wall St. lists Tesla as NASDAQ:TSLA and SpaceX as NASDAQ:SPCX. It treats their contrasting regulatory dependencies as one shared political risk.

What do the third-quarter numbers show?

24/7 Wall St. reported that Tesla's revenue stayed roughly flat year over year, so it identified software rather than vehicle sales as the growth story. Active Full Self-Driving (FSD), Tesla's automated-driving software, subscriptions rose to 1.74 million from 1.04 million.

Musk called FSD “the biggest driver for demand.” 24/7 Wall St. cited deliveries of 486,532 and a battery-supply limit, then interpreted that constraint as evidence that demand exceeded factory capacity.

24/7 Wall St. supplied no canceled-order count or production-capacity figure to quantify that inference. Readers therefore cannot test how much additional vehicle demand the constraint represented.

SpaceX generated $14.60 billion, above the $13.02 billion estimate, and reported $4.40 billion in net income, according to 24/7 Wall St. Its Super Intelligence unit, which includes Grok, Cursor and cloud computing, brought in $7.60 billion, up 830%.

24/7 Wall St. characterized the mix: “At this point SpaceX is as much an AI landlord as a rocket maker.” The source did not disclose the unit's profit margin or how much growth came from each component.

24/7 Wall St. mapped the two businesses this way:

• Growth engines: FSD and Robotaxi for Tesla; AI compute and Starlink for SpaceX.
• Customers: Retail car buyers for Tesla; NASA, defense and enterprises for SpaceX.
• Political pressure: Autonomy rules and subsidies for Tesla; federal contracts and Ukraine for SpaceX.

The two growth claims also use different yardsticks: Tesla reports subscriber counts, while SpaceX reports revenue from a unit spanning three components. 24/7 Wall St. supplied no common profit, retention or margin measure, so its comparison signals scale rather than equal business quality.

24/7 Wall St.'s comparison makes Tesla's political risk sharper because its leading software products require public approval. SpaceX also faces scrutiny, but its AI and connectivity businesses rest on contracts and infrastructure that give it greater leverage.

Why does Tesla face sharper regulatory exposure?

Tesla's autonomy plan must clear federal regulators before it can move forward, 24/7 Wall St. said. Analysts on the earnings call pressed management about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Open Safety Review, placing the federal safety examination at the center of oversight.

Ashok Elluswamy, who runs Autopilot software, said regulatory issues could intensify “perhaps in Q1 or Q2 time frames.” Musk raised the risk himself: “Unless we are stopped by governments, which is certainly a possibility…”

Both executives described timing as conditional rather than guaranteed. Elluswamy tied a regulatory slowdown to two possible quarters, while Musk tied expansion to a political stop. Neither statement established an approval date, and 24/7 Wall St. did not reconcile them with the Q1 European timetable discussed later.

24/7 Wall St. also said Tesla's consumer product clashes with federal subsidies and labor politics. The source named neither a specific subsidy nor labor dispute, leaving those political claims less concrete than the regulatory timeline. On the source's account, Tesla's exposure reaches beyond elections into permits, subsidies and labor rules that can change its product plan.

Can scrutiny reach SpaceX?

SpaceX's launch backlog includes 18 National Security Space Launch missions, according to 24/7 Wall St. The source called SpaceX an indispensable national-security utility, which raises the cost of directly disrupting its operations.

Democrats want answers about contracts awarded while Musk led DOGE and restrictions placed on Starlink in Ukraine, 24/7 Wall St. said. It did not identify the contracts or restrictions, so the potential investigation's scope remains undefined.

24/7 Wall St. also argued that pursuing SpaceX could disrupt Pentagon launch schedules. That gives the company a strong but imperfect defense, because national-security reliance may protect missions while leaving other scrutiny unresolved. In the source's assessment, SpaceX therefore faces political risk, but its government-service role makes direct pressure costlier than Tesla's permit risk.

What do permits and a merger change?

Musk expects EU-wide FSD approval and said, “I would be surprised if it takes longer than Q1.” 24/7 Wall St. said it would monitor whether congressional oversight slows the U.S. Cybercab, Tesla's planned driverless taxi, launch.

SpaceX needs its 800 MHz spectrum deal, an allocation of radio frequencies, to close in the first half of 2027, the source said. Democrats could delay the review, but the article did not describe the regulatory process or political commitments attached to the deal.

Tesla and SpaceX have also formed special committees to weigh a merger, according to linked reporting cited by 24/7 Wall St. In comments relayed by the publication, GLJ Research's Gordon Johnson told Business Insider: “The problem is timing and scrutiny.”

24/7 Wall St. offered no timetable or probability for approval, leaving the committees' practical effect uncertain. In practical terms, permits, spectrum review and merger scrutiny each create dates when political resistance could become financially material.

The source treats these as separate flashpoints with separate actors: federal regulators for FSD, congressional review for spectrum, and political timing for a merger. That structure leaves each approval exposed to a different political bottleneck.

Which company is better insulated?

24/7 Wall St. sees SpaceX as better insulated from political risk into 2027. Tesla trades near 396 times earnings with a 4.6% operating margin, the share of revenue left after operating costs, according to the source.

The combination points to a stock priced around future approvals rather than current operating earnings. SpaceX's named customer groups offer more visible revenue anchors, although the source does not disclose each group's contribution.

The source argued that much of Tesla's valuation depends on Robotaxi and Optimus, Tesla's humanoid robot, approvals that a hostile Congress can delay. It offered no valuation model or approval probability, so the size of that political discount remains uncertain.

In the source's November 11, 2026 analysis, Tesla shares were down 15.55% for the year, while SpaceX shares had fallen 11.98% over the past month. 24/7 Wall St. read Tesla's decline as evidence that investors already see the risk.

SpaceX's revenue comes from the Pentagon, NASA, airlines and AI clients, according to the source. The source still said patient growth investors can make a case for Tesla because its FSD momentum is real, and would change its view if Cybercab expands across several cities without federal opposition by mid-2027.

By mid-2027, the source's test is measurable: several-city Cybercab expansion without federal opposition, plus closure of SpaceX's 800 MHz spectrum deal in the first half of the year. Those milestones will show whether political scrutiny remains a timing problem or becomes a durable constraint on each business.