Elon Musk is stacking bold claims about Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot on top of an already aggressive push into autonomous vehicles, framing the bot as a product that could eventually dwarf Tesla’s car business. The company’s latest financial disclosures and internal communications paint a picture of a firm betting heavily on AI-powered hardware, even as quarterly profits have slipped and federal regulators continue probing its self-driving software. The tension between Musk’s vision for Optimus and the real-world constraints facing Tesla is the most interesting story in the company’s orbit right now.
Optimus Takes Center Stage in Tesla’s AI Bet
Tesla’s annual filing with the SEC for fiscal year 2025 makes the company’s priorities explicit. The Form 10-K discusses Tesla’s focus on bringing AI into the physical world through Full Self-Driving (Supervised), its planned Robotaxi service, and AI robots including Optimus. That language matters because SEC filings carry legal weight; companies do not casually list speculative side projects in documents that expose them to shareholder lawsuits. Musk has described Optimus as a major product, and the filing suggests Tesla’s leadership genuinely views the humanoid robot as a core business line rather than a flashy demo.
At a surprise all-hands meeting with employees, Musk went further, laying out production targets and future plans for both Optimus and the company’s Cybercab robotaxi. Those internal remarks, delivered after a period of stock price pressure, carried a rallying tone. Musk made promises about scaling Optimus manufacturing alongside the Cybercab rollout, tying the two programs together as complementary pieces of Tesla’s AI strategy. The framing aligns with Tesla’s own mission language, which references “amazing abundance” on its official master plans page. Whether the production targets Musk cited internally will hold up against supply chain and regulatory realities is a separate question entirely.
Sales Up, Profits Down, and a Robotaxi Promise
Tesla’s financial results tell a more complicated story than Musk’s ambitions alone. The company’s sales rose in the third quarter, but profits fell during the same period, according to Associated Press coverage that included specific quarterly figures. That divergence, higher revenue paired with lower earnings, suggests Tesla is spending aggressively or absorbing margin pressure, possibly from price cuts on vehicles, increased R&D outlays for Optimus and FSD, or both. Musk stated during that same period that robotaxi expansion would occur by year end, adding yet another capital-intensive program to the company’s near-term roadmap and heightening the stakes if the rollout slips.
Tesla released its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results alongside a Q&A webcast replay available through its investor webcast. The earnings call is where Musk and Tesla executives typically offer the most detailed commentary on timelines and capabilities, and where the gap between aspiration and execution becomes most visible. Analysts listening in have to parse Musk’s optimism about software-driven margins and AI-powered products against the hard numbers on operating income, capital expenditures, and cash flow. The robotaxi-by-year-end prediction and the Optimus production targets deserve the same measured skepticism that has historically proven useful when evaluating Tesla: the company tends to deliver something real, but almost never on the original schedule, or at the initial cost estimate.
China’s Magnet Bottleneck Could Slow the Surge
One of the less discussed but potentially significant constraints on Optimus production involves rare-earth magnets sourced from China. On an earnings call, Musk acknowledged that China wants assurances that magnets destined for Tesla’s humanoid robot will not be used for military purposes, a requirement that introduces export licensing friction into the supply chain. Rare-earth magnets are essential components in the actuators and motors that give robots like Optimus their range of motion, torque, and responsiveness. If Chinese authorities slow or restrict shipments, Tesla’s ability to ramp production could be materially affected regardless of how quickly the software and mechanical design mature, and no amount of coding can compensate for missing hardware.
This supply chain wrinkle deserves more attention than it typically receives. Tesla’s EV business already weathered battery material shortages in earlier years, and the company learned to diversify suppliers and vertically integrate where possible. But rare-earth magnet production is far more geographically concentrated than lithium or nickel supply chains, and China dominates global output in both mining and processing. Musk’s public acknowledgment of the issue signals that Tesla has not yet resolved it and may need to redesign components or secure alternative suppliers if geopolitical tensions worsen. For anyone watching Optimus as an investment thesis or a technological milestone, the magnet question is a concrete, measurable bottleneck that could determine whether the robot ships in meaningful volumes or remains a limited-run prototype for years.
Federal Regulators Keep Watch on FSD
Tesla’s AI ambitions do not exist in a regulatory vacuum. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation is actively looking into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software over allegations that the system can violate traffic laws, including running red lights and driving into opposing lanes. The agency’s public recall database shows how safety concerns around advanced driver-assistance systems can escalate into formal actions that force software changes or limit feature deployment. For Tesla, any mandated modifications to FSD behavior can ripple through its broader AI roadmap, because the same perception and planning stack underpins both the robotaxi concept and, potentially, navigation capabilities for Optimus in real-world environments.
Separately, NHTSA’s Standing General Order 2021-01 established detailed crash reporting requirements for vehicles equipped with Level 2 driver-assistance systems and more advanced automated driving systems. Tesla’s FSD falls squarely within that reporting framework, meaning every qualifying incident generates data that regulators can use to evaluate the technology’s safety record over time. Tesla was also granted additional time to respond to the federal investigation into its self-driving technology, an extension that underscores how complex the underlying questions are around system design, driver supervision, and real-world performance. The more Tesla leans on AI to justify premium pricing and future revenue streams, the more tightly its fortunes become intertwined with regulators who now have both the data and the mandate to scrutinize each software update.
Can Optimus Really Eclipse the Car Business?
The strategic throughline connecting Optimus, FSD, and robotaxis is Musk’s belief that AI embodied in hardware can unlock a step-change in productivity and, by extension, in Tesla’s valuation. Internally, tying Optimus production to Cybercab deployment sends employees a clear message that the company is evolving from an automaker into an AI robotics platform. Externally, it helps sustain a narrative that Tesla’s current financial volatility is a temporary side effect of investing in transformative technologies. Yet the same disclosures that elevate Optimus to a core business line also expose the program to more rigorous scrutiny from investors, auditors, and regulators, all of whom will expect clearer milestones and risk assessments as capital commitments grow.
Whether Optimus can eventually eclipse Tesla’s vehicle segment depends on three variables that are still very much in flux: the pace of technical progress, the resilience of supply chains, and the trajectory of regulation. On the technical side, Tesla must prove that a general-purpose humanoid robot can perform economically valuable tasks at scale, not just walk across a stage or fold laundry in a controlled demo. On the supply side, the rare-earth magnet bottleneck shows how a single component category can threaten volume targets, especially when it sits inside a politically sensitive trade lane. On the regulatory front, the ongoing scrutiny of FSD illustrates how quickly enthusiasm for AI-powered mobility can collide with safety concerns. For now, Optimus is best understood not as a guaranteed successor to Tesla’s car business, but as a high-upside, high-friction bet. It will test every part of the company’s AI, manufacturing, and regulatory playbook over the rest of the decade.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
