In a surprising turn of events, reports emerged suggesting that the US Department of State had included an order for $400 million worth of armored electric vehicles in its 2025 procurement forecast. However, shortly after these reports surfaced, the department replaced the specific mention of "Armored Tesla (Production Units)" with a more ambiguous entry, "Armored Electric Vehicles." This change raised questions about the accuracy and intent behind the initial report. Despite the buzz surrounding this potential contract, Tesla CEO Elon Musk quickly downplayed the situation, stating that no one had informed him about such a substantial order.
In the waning days of December, just before the transition to a new administration, a document was published that initially detailed a significant procurement plan. The original text specified an impressive $400 million allocation for armored Teslas, likely referring to the Cybertruck model known for its robust stainless steel body and bullet-resistant features. The New York Times and Bloomberg were among the first to highlight this intriguing detail. However, the Department of State swiftly revised the document to use less specific language, raising eyebrows and prompting speculation about the reasons behind the alteration.
The procurement list also included allocations for other armored vehicles, such as $40 million for BMW X5 and X7 models, along with vague references to "armored sedan" and "armored EV (not sedan)." These changes further fueled discussions about the transparency and intentions of government spending. In response to the growing attention, Elon Musk clarified on social media that he was unaware of any such order, expressing skepticism about the reported figures.
From a journalist's perspective, this incident underscores the importance of scrutinizing official documents and questioning their revisions. It highlights the need for transparency in government procurement processes and the impact of high-profile figures like Elon Musk on public perception. The swift modification of the document suggests that there may be underlying factors influencing such decisions, warranting further investigation into the motivations behind these actions.