Has Elon Musk really been awarded a $1 trillion pay deal?

Tesla shares jumped 6 percent on Monday after CEO Elon Musk disclosed that he had bought $1bn worth of the company’s stock. The move reinforces Musk’s push for greater control over Tesla and comes a week after the company’s board offered him a $1 trillion pay package over the next decade.

Musk’s stock purchase – his first open-market buy-up of shares since 2020 – comes at a critical time for Tesla, as it races to transform into an artificial intelligence and robotics firm whilst also grappling with falling sales of electric vehicles (EVs).

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

But Musk’s pay packet has come in for intense criticism. Last weekend, Pope Leo decried the widening pay gap between corporate bosses such as Elon Musk – whose estimated wealth now stands at $367bn – and ordinary working people, which he said was a major factor in growing global unrest.

Tesla Model Y cars on display as Tesla opens its first Delhi-NCR showroom at Aerocity on August 11, 2025 in New Delhi, India [Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times via Getty Images]

Why is Musk buying up Tesla shares?

On September 12, Musk, 54, purchased 2.57 million shares (which represents less than one percent of Tesla’s market capitalisation), paying between $372 and $397 per share as the price varied through the day, according to regulatory filings. He now owns almost 20 percent of Tesla, which seemingly pleases its investors.

Tesla’s share price rose to around $422 on Monday – still 12 percent lower than its all-time high of $479 (reached in December 2024). Following his recent move, Musk posted on X that the increase in Tesla’s value was “foretold in the prophecy”.

While Musk wasn’t an original founder of Tesla – he invested in the company one year after it was established – he became chairman in 2004. The South African entrepreneur has consistently demanded a bigger stake and more voting power at Tesla, having previously said he would prefer to build AI products and robots outside of Tesla if he cannot control 25 percent voting power in the firm.

Musk sold more than $20bn of Tesla’s stock (or 4.6 percent of its market cap) in 2022 to fund his acquisition of Twitter, now X, for $44bn. He also owns private holdings in SpaceX, Neuralink and The Boring Company.

Is Musk really being paid $1 trillion?

The Tesla CEO will have to meet certain performance-related criteria first. To unlock the full $1 trillion payout, Musk will have to raise the company’s valuation from roughly $1 trillion today to $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. He will also have to sell one million autonomous taxis and one million robots and increase Tesla’s profits by more than 24 times what it earned last year.

Tesla currently operates a few dozen autonomous taxis in a limited area in the city where it is headquartered, Austin, Texas in the US. Known as “robotaxis“, they are self-driving vehicles but are accompanied by human “safety supervisors”, who can intervene if problems occur.

On the robotics side, the company unveiled its first humanoid robot – Optimus – in 2022. In 2024, Musk claimed that Tesla would deploy robots for “internal use [ie for use inside its own factories]” in 2025, and that it would have produced 5,000 units by then. Neither pledge has been met so far.

Musk also recently said that “80 percent of Tesla’s [future] value will be Optimus”.

How has Musk’s pay at Tesla risen over time?

After Musk joined Tesla in 2004, he took very little cash pay. Instead, he chose to be paid in equity. Then, in 2018, shareholders approved a landmark 10-year pay package for Musk – linked to various operational targets – estimated at $2.6bn.

As Tesla’s market value surged after the start of 2020 (when it was trading at just $29.50 a share), many of those pay objectives were met, and Musk received a large number of additional Tesla shares. Due to broad stock market gains since the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk’s earnings are estimated to have climbed by $40bn-$60bn.

Though Musk’s pay windfall at Tesla has attracted regulatory scrutiny for overcompensation, especially from Delaware’s Court of Chancery, most of the company’s shareholders have repeatedly ratified the CEO’s payment packages.

How do CEOs’ pay packets compare to those of average US workers?

Tesla doesn’t disclose non-executive salaries, so it is hard to say how Musk’s income compares to that of the average worker there.

However, corporate pay in the US has generally rallied in recent decades compared to that of workers. According to the Economic Policy Institute, average pay for CEOs at S&P 500 companies  – the 500 biggest listed firms in the US – rose by almost 1,000 percent over the 50-year period leading up to 2024.

By contrast, a typical worker at an S&P 500 company has seen his or her pay packet rise by just 27 percent (adjusted for inflation) over the same period. Stated differently, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased from 30:1 to 350:1 over the past five decades.

In an interview last week with Crux, a Catholic news website, Pope Leo singled out Elon Musk as an example of the kind of wealth he said was corroding “the value of human life, of the family, of the value of society”.

Asked about Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion pay packet, Leo responded: “What does that mean, and what’s that about? If [personal wealth accumulation] is the only thing that has any value any more, then we are in big trouble.”

Is Tesla in trouble?

Despite its recent uptick, so far this year, Tesla’s stock market performance has been among the worst of the “Magnificent 7” group of tech giants – which also includes Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Nvidia – having lost around 2 percent of its value this year so far.

Tesla’s most recent quarterly results showed profit losses amid falling demand for electric vehicles and increased import production costs associated with US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs. Looking ahead, earnings look set to continue falling.

King Charles greets Trump with royal pageantry in UK’s Windsor Castle

United States President Donald Trump arrived at Windsor Castle for a two-day state visit to the United Kingdom, welcomed with a magnificent royal ceremony, military honour guards, and mounted troops in ornate red and gold uniforms.

Prince William, the next in line to the British throne, and his wife, Princess Catherine, met the president and First Lady Melania Trump as they landed in the Marine One helicopter in the castle estate’s private Walled Garden, then escorted them to their meeting with King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

The group travelled to the castle in horse-drawn carriages, passing formations of military personnel while bands performed both national anthems. President Trump and King Charles engaged in conversation while riding in the Irish State Coach to the castle quadrangle, where they reviewed an honour guard of soldiers in their distinctive red tunics and bearskin hats.

The day’s elaborate pageantry marks Trump’s historic second state visit to the UK. The impressive display, crafted to appeal to the president’s appreciation for grandeur, features approximately 120 horses and 1,300 troops, including what officials describe as the largest guard of honour in living memory.

Trump landed in London late on Tuesday and expressed his fondness for the United Kingdom as “a very special place”. When questioned about his message for Charles, he noted their longstanding friendship and the high regard in which the king is held.

Unlike most state visits traditionally held at London’s Buckingham Palace, this one takes place in Windsor, an historic town of just more than 30,000 residents, approximately 25 miles (40km) west of central London.

Windsor is home to Windsor Castle, one of the British royal family’s residences.

This location enables enhanced security and better protest management during a period of heightened international tensions, especially following the fatal shooting of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in the US state of Utah. British authorities have implemented comprehensive security measures to ensure the president’s safety.

Will a boycott over Israel divide the Eurovision Song Contest?

Several European countries have announced that they will not participate in the next Eurovision Song Contest if Israel, which has taken part in the annual competition for half a century, is allowed to continue.

On Tuesday, Spain joined the Netherlands, Ireland and Slovenia in denouncing Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 65,000 people since October 2023, with many thousands more lost under the rubble and presumed dead, and announced that they will not take part if Israel continues to do so.

What is Eurovision?

Eurovision is an international song competition which takes place every year, primarily in European countries, and is televised. It has been running since 1956 and is one of the world’s longest-running and most-watched non-sporting TV events.

Each country performs an original song and the winner is determined by voting. The contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a collective of public broadcasters in more than 35 countries.

Any country which has a broadcaster operating within Europe as part of the EBU can participate in Eurovision. Australia joined in 2015, Armenia in 2006 and Azerbaijan in 2011.

The winner of each contest hosts the following year competition.

The next contest will take place in May 2026 in Vienna.

Israel and Eurovision: a brief history

Israel first took part in Eurovision in 1973 because its national broadcaster is a member of the EBU. Back then, Israel’s national broadcaster was the Israel Broadcasting Authority; now it is the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, or Kan, and is still part of the EBU.

Arabic-speaking countries have only taken part very rarely: Morocco participated only once in 1980 – which was the only time an Arabic song featured in the contest. Tunisia and Lebanon withdrew in 1977 and 2005 after refusing to air Israeli content.

Israel’s participation in Eurovision has frequently met protests, but objections have intensified since the start of its war on Gaza in October 2023, following the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel.

For the 2024 competition, which was held in Malmo, Sweden, the EBU rejected Israel’s entry for being too political. The entry was a song called October Rain, referencing the victims of the October 7 Hamas attack, during which 1,139 people were killed.

While initially reluctant, Kan changed Israel’s entry to a romantic ballad. Israel was ranked fifth in the competition.

Israel also participated in the 2025 competition, which was held in Basel, Switzerland, finishing in second place.

Which countries are boycotting Eurovision over Israel?

So far, five European countries have said they may not participate in Eurovision if Israel does.

Iceland

Iceland’s broadcaster RUV said that it is possible that Iceland would withdraw from Eurovision if Israel participates in the competition, according to a news report published by the RUV website on September 9.

Ireland

On September 11, Irish national broadcaster RTE issued a statement announcing it would not participate in Eurovision in 2026 if Israel participates.

“RTE feels that Ireland’s participation would be unconscionable given the ongoing and appalling loss of lives in Gaza,” the statement said.

Netherlands

On September 12, Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, one of the public broadcasters that funds and organises Eurovision, announced that it will not participate in the competition in Vienna if Israel takes part.

It cited the “ongoing and severe human suffering in Gaza” as the reason.

The statement added, “The broadcaster also expresses deep concern about the serious erosion of press freedom: the deliberate exclusion of independent international reporting and the many casualties among journalists.”

Slovenia

Also on September 12, Slovenian broadcaster RTV Slovenia announced that it will also not participate in Eurovision if Israel takes part in the competition.

Spain

On Tuesday this week, Spanish state broadcaster RTVE’s board voted to withdraw from Eurovision if Israel participates.

Spain is the first country among Eurovision’s “big five” to make such an announcement. The big five, which also includes the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France, are countries that automatically qualify for Eurovision’s final round regardless of how they perform in previous rounds.

This announcement came a day after Spain’s Culture Minister Ernest Urtasun told the local television programme, La Hora de La 1, that the country would consider “measures” if Israel was “not expelled”. Urtasun added that Spain had already formally requested Israel’s exclusion from Eurovision.

How has Eurovision responded?

Eurovision typically stresses political neutrality.

Martin Green, director of Eurovision, released a statement saying the organisation is “still consulting” with its partners on how to deal with “participation and geopolitical tensions around the Eurovision Song Contest”.

Green said, “We understand the concerns and deeply held views around the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. It is up to each member to decide if they want to take part in the contest, and we would respect any decision broadcasters make.”

Will this divide Eurovision?

Experts say that while it is difficult to determine whether the boycott will divide Eurovision, it could keep awareness about the war in Gaza strong as Eurovision is televised throughout Europe and beyond.

Christina Oberg, a professor at the Department of Marketing and Tourism Studies at the Linnaeus University in Sweden, told Al Jazeera that the original ambition of Eurovision was to foster collaboration and peace in Europe after World War II.

In an article she published in June 2025 about the politicisation of Eurovision, Oberg said that Eurovision had managed for decades to uphold its “inclusive European vision” despite ongoing regional tensions until the first “real shift” was seen when the EBU banned Russia following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

It stated at the time, “The Eurovision Song Contest is a non-political cultural event. The EBU is however concerned about current events in Ukraine and will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

“This means that ESC – or more rightfully EBU made itself a political player,” Oberg said. “Then, based on the Gaza war, questions arise why IBU does not act the same. I don’t want to say what is right or wrong here, but there are issues in the inconsistency.”

She added that there will probably will be peer pressure on other countries to issue statements similar to those issued by Spain and other European countries recently.

“I don’t see this as a divide, more as country-level decisions, rather than as some countries being for or against.”

She added that while the countries’ announcements to withdraw from the competition are mostly symbolic, they do bring attention to the issue.

‘Ball still in Iran’s court,’ European powers say after nuclear issues call

Germany says the “ball is still in Iran’s court” after the French, British and German foreign ministers held talks by phone with their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Wednesday’s phone call came after the European powers last month triggered a 30-day deadline for “snapback” sanctions to come into force in the absence of a negotiated deal on the Iranian nuclear programme.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

A German Federal Foreign Office spokesman told the AFP news agency on Wednesday that the offer from the so-called E3 powers “to discuss a temporary extension of the snapback if Iran fulfils certain conditions remains on the table” but added: “At this point, the steps taken by Iran have not been sufficient.”

Before the call, Tehran called for a “positive approach and goodwill” from the E3.

The E3 has been warning Tehran for weeks that United Nations sanctions could be reimposed by October when a 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and major powers expires.

A spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned that renewing the sanctions would have consequences.

The E3 has accused Tehran of violating provisions of the 2015 nuclear pact, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, which all three countries signed, saw Iran agree to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions on its economy.

A component of the nuclear deal, the “snapback” mechanism, allows sanctions to be reimposed quickly if Iran is found to be in violation of the accord.

The call, which also included European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, followed an agreement reached by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week on resuming cooperation between Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog, including in principle the inspection of nuclear sites. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has backed renewed nuclear inspections.

Earlier in the week, Iran was pushing for a resolution prohibiting attacks on nuclear installations at the IAEA’s General Conference, which started on Monday in Vienna and ends on Friday.

According to Iran’s deputy nuclear chief, Behrouz Kamalvandi, who is in Vienna, the United States is putting pressure on member states to block the resolution and has “even threatened the agency that they will cut off assistance to the organisation”.

During a 12-day conflict in June, Israel and the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities, claiming Iran was getting too close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and IAEA inspections were interrupted over security concerns and complaints by Tehran.

Resumed cooperation between Iran and the IAEA is one of the three conditions set by European powers to hold off on completing the UN snapback mechanism, which they invoked in August.

“It is a natural expectation that Iran’s positive approach and goodwill should be reciprocated by the European side. … If some European parties start nagging this is not enough, that would mean they do not accept the IAEA,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Wednesday.

“We hope that with contacts like today’s and future ones, all parties will come to the conclusion that escalating tensions and perpetuating the current situation is not in anyone’s interest.”

Since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, the Board of Governors of the IAEA has adopted four Western-backed censure resolutions against Iran, which maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful civilian purposes.