Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.

Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.

As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.

Rogan reveal

On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”

Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”

He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”

Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”

That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.

The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.

Good timing

Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.

Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.

Hovering hype

So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.

There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.

The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.

Sky’s the limit

Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.

In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.

Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.

The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.

Got a permit for that?

Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.

Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.

RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car

Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson

Free parachute with purchase

Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.

NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.

In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.

Sticking the landing

So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.

But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.

Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.

​Elon musk, Tesla, Flying cars, Lifestyle, Auto industry, Align cars 

A Campbell’s Soup executive was allegedly recorded mocking the company’s customers and making racial comments against its Indian employees, according to a lawsuit from a former employee.

Robert Garza of Monroe, Michigan, says that he was fired from the company after complaining about the comments made by the executive in an hour-long rant he recorded from a meeting at a restaurant.

‘I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.’

The executive, Martin Bally, is now the vice president of the company.

“He has no filter,” Robert Garza said to WDIV-TV. “He thinks he’s a C-level executive at a Fortune 500 company and he can do whatever he wants because he’s an executive.”

Garza was hired as a remote security analyst in September 2024 for the company’s headquarters in Camden, New Jersey. He said he recorded the conversation with Bally because he felt there was something off about his former supervisor.

“We have s**t for f**king poor people. Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer,” said the man identified as Bally by Garza on the recording.

He also derided the workers from India at the company.

“F**king Indians don’t know a f**king thing,” the man said on the recording. “Like they couldn’t think for their f**king selves.”

Garza said he felt “pure disgust” after hearing the rant. He says that Bally admitted to being high on marijuana edibles on the job as well, which is included in the filing.

In Jan. 2025, Garza went to his supervisor to complain about the comments, but Garza says he was fired weeks later.

“He reached out to his supervisor and told the supervisor what Martin was saying, and then out of nowhere, my client was fired,” said Garza’s attorney, Zachary Runyan.

“He was really sticking up for other people,” Runyan continued. “He went to his boss and said, ‘Martin is saying this about Indian co-workers we have. He’s saying this about people who buy our food — who keep our company open, and I don’t think that should be allowed.’ And the response to Robert sticking up for other people is he gets fired, which is ridiculous.”

Garza said he was shocked at the decision because Bally had praised his performance during the meeting.

“He had never had any disciplinary action; they had never written him up for work performance,” Runyan added.

RELATED: FDA announces ban on red food dye over cancer concerns

The lawsuit accuses the company of maintaining a racially hostile work environment by firing Garza in retaliation. He says that he never received a follow-up from Human Resources or from the company, and it took him 10 months to find another job.

The company released a statement to WDIV about the lawsuit.

“If accurate, the comments in the recording are unacceptable,” the statement reads. “They do not reflect our values and the culture of our company. We are actively investigating this matter.”

The lawsuit names vice president and chief information security officer Martin Bally and supervisor J.D. Aupperle as defendants in addition to the Campbell Soup Company.

The Campbell Soup Company employs more than 144K employees and has more than $10.3 billion in net sales annually, according to its website.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Campbell’s soup vp, Highly processed food, Bioengineered meat, Anti-indian racism, Politics 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is getting renewed scrutiny after Democrats tried to use the program as a cudgel to beat down Republicans during the government shutdown.

Some Republicans are calling for new restrictions on SNAP to decrease program spending and cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse.

‘I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

According to Republican U.S. Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, $524 million was spent “almost exclusively on fast food, in nine states” over two years. The figure comes from spending through the Restaurant Meals Program option that allows select SNAP beneficiaries to use their funds on participating restaurants, including fast food shops.

“The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition — not nuggets with a side of fries,” Ernst said in a statement accompanying the press release. “I wish I was McRibbing you, but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.”

The RMP option varies by state but is intended to help those who have problems preparing their own meals, including people with disabilities, the elderly, and homeless people.

While fast food eats up millions in benefits, according to a previous report on SNAP spending, about 23% of the funds are redeemed on sugary drinks like soda and other snacks.

In 2024, the federal government spent about $100 billion on SNAP, which means that about $23 billion was spent on sugary drinks and snacks. That includes about 10% on soda, which would represent about $10 billion worth of taxpayer funds.

Ernst’s McSCUSE ME Act would revise the RMP standards and impose additional restrictions to lessen spending on fast food restaurants.

RELATED: Woman goes viral after admitting to being on SNAP benefits for 3 decades

The Restaurant Meals Program was implemented in 1977.

Despite the effort to make SNAP more efficient, it is a drop in the bucket of total federal spending. Even if the entire program was ended and all food aid was canceled, it would only represent a 1.5% decrease in the budget.

About 41.7 million people in the U.S. receive SNAP benefits, which is about 1 in every 8 people in the country.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Snap spent on fast food, Welfare on fast food, Snap benefits, Welfare on snacks, Politics 

Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas very confidently claimed on the House floor that Republicans, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, had taken money from Jeffrey Epstein. However, that Jeffrey Epstein was not the Jeffrey Epstein.

Crockett boomed into the microphone that Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Rick Lazio took money from a man named Jeffrey Epstein.

And in a segment on CNN, Crockett tried to spin her mistake when Kaitlan Collins asked about her defense of Democrat House Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who had been exposed for texting Jeffrey Epstein.

“You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He’s now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said it was actually Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who’s a doctor that doesn’t have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is who donated to a prior campaign of his,” Collins said.

“Do you want to correct the record?” Collins asked.

“I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein,” Crockett responded. “Just so that people understand, when you make a donation, your picture is not there, and because they decided to spring this on us in real time, I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I knew that they didn’t even try to go through the FEC.”

“So, my team, what they did is they Googled. And that is specifically why I said, ‘a Jeffrey Epstein.’ Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies, because it was not the same one,” she continued.

“But when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn’t trying to mislead people,” she added.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is not buying it.

“You clearly were smearing,” Glenn laughs.

“She’s trying to say, ‘Well, I didn’t lie,’” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in. “Like that’s your defense in theory, right?”

Burguiere also points out that Crockett was proud of adding an “a” in front of “Jeffrey Epstein,” but she shouldn’t be.

“She knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein,” he says.

“She’s insane,” Glenn adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Free, Video, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Jasmine crockett, Jeffrey epstein, Jasmine crockett is dumb, Epstein files, Lee zeldin 

An elderly New York City man has been sentenced to prison after he fatally shot a career criminal who allegedly lunged at him in 2023 — and for a reason many will find infuriating.

Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of criminal weapons possession in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home in Queens, the New York Post reported.

‘If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today.’

More specifically, Foehner will spend four years in prison after admitting to carrying an unlicensed revolver, the paper said, adding that Foehner’s attorney blasted the city’s “draconian” gun laws.

The Post said the Queens District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute Foehner — a retired doorman — for Gonzalez’s killing after he told police that he defended himself from a mugger who lunged at him late at night holding what looked like a knife, except it was a pen.

More from the paper:

But prosecutors slapped Foehner with a slew of weapons raps for the unlicensed handgun and for an arsenal of illicit handguns, revolvers and rifles inside his home in the quiet neighborhood.

Foehner took the plea deal to avoid a trial, where he faced 25 years in prison on gun charges that are not hard to prove, said his attorney Thomas Kenniff after Thursday’s hearing in Queens Supreme Court.

Kenniff called Foehner a “hero” who was put in an “impossible position” by what he called “draconian” Big Apple gun laws that make it difficult for “law-abiding citizens” to obtain permits to carry firearms.

“If this was a state and a city that had its affairs in order, Mr. Foehner would be getting a plaque, not a prison sentence,” Kenniff told reporters on the courthouse steps, the Post said.

Foehner’s attorney added that lawmakers in New York City and the state capital have “repeatedly frustrated the rights of law-abiding Americans, New Yorkers, that possess firearms,” the paper reported.

The Post said attorney Kenniff is known for successfully defending Marine veteran Daniel Penny from charges of fatally choking a homeless man who threatened New York City subway passengers in May 2023.

“If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today,” Kenniff also said, according to the paper.

RELATED: 7-Eleven hands down unthinkable punishment to clerk after she shoots knife-wielding thug who attacked, strangled her

Following his arrest on the heels of the 2 a.m. fatal shooting in a driveway near his home at 82nd Avenue and Queens Boulevard, Foehner told police he had been carrying the gun in question to protect himself from crime in New York City, the Post noted.

More from the paper:

Security footage showed the alleged robber Gonzalez — who had at least 15 arrests dating back to 2004 and a record of mental illness — continuing to charge at Foehner even after the senior pulled his gun.

Foehner took the deal Thursday with the understanding that he’d be sentenced to four years in prison at his sentencing date Jan. 14, his lawyer said.

Until then, he’ll remain “at liberty” and will be able to celebrate Christmas with his wife, Judge Toni Cimino ruled — over objections from the Queens DA’s Office, which had pushed for him to spend the holidays at Rikers Island.

“While we very much respect DA Melinda Katz and the fine prosecutors she assigned to this case, we were disappointed that the DA’s Office sought to have Charlie remanded before sentencing,” Kenniff noted Thursday, according to the Post. “We are grateful that Judge Toni Cimino agreed to let Charlie rejoice with his wife in the light of this Christmas season before he begins his sentence.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Crime thwarted, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, New york city, Elderly man, Fatal shooting, Jail sentence, Unlicensed gun, Attempted robbery, Career criminal, Self-defense, Queens, Senior citizen, Crime 

A Democratic mayoral candidate in Rhode Island declared that his disturbing criminal history does not disqualify him from running for office.

Providence voters will decide on their next mayor in 2026. Incumbent Mayor Brett Smiley and state Rep. David Morales, both Democrats, are the current leading candidates in the race.

A third Democratic candidate, 54-year-old Michael English, has announced his candidacy. However, a Tuesday report from the Providence Journal raised some concerning details about English’s past.

‘If I haven’t showed how to go from nothing to something again, then no one will.’

English’s campaign website describes him as a “blue-collar Democrat” who believes “leadership, honesty, [and] integrity is the best policy.” The mayoral candidate states that he is “committed to protecting the most vulnerable members of our city.”

In an open letter to the citizens of Providence, English admits to having a criminal record.

“I will not deny that in 1996, while running for House District 4, I made immature decisions that led to my arrest and a period of incarceration coupled with I dropped out of Hope High School in 1990 and, simply put, I failed to live up to my potential,” English wrote.

RELATED: Eric Swalwell launches anti-Trump gubernatorial campaign amid criminal referral to DOJ

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley. Photo by John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

He stated that after completing his sentence, he has dedicated himself to self-improvement.

“I earned my GED, received my paralegal certificate, and continued this disciplined path, ultimately earning a [sic] two Bachelor’s, two Master’s, and a Doctor [sic] degree,” English continued.

English was convicted of child molestation against a 13-year-old girl in 1998, the Providence Journal stated. He reportedly served 15 months in prison, despite the attorney general’s office recommending a 40-year sentence, with seven years to serve. The court required English to register as a sex offender, but only for 10 years.

He served another 19 months a decade later, after the victim accused him of violating a no-contact order by driving to her home and suggesting they go out for coffee.

English told the Providence Journal that he was living across the street from the victim at the time.

RELATED: Senate Democrats insist the shutdown was ‘definitely’ worth it despite fully surrendering to Republicans

Rhode Island state Representative David Morales. Photo by Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

He argued that people who believe his criminal history should disqualify him from running for mayor are “wrong, legally.”

“They also should calculate what did I do from then,” he told the news outlet. “If I haven’t showed how to go from nothing to something again, then no one will.”

English stated that neither of the other candidates running for mayor is “good for our city.”

“What we’ve got right now is a socialist and then Mayor Smiley,” he told the Providence Journal. “I know I’m the non-favorite in theory, but right now if I play my cards right, I think I could win.”

“If I’m the bad guy here, God help you all,” English added.

While English’s conviction was not expunged or judicially sealed, the file has been marked “confidential” under a decades-old court policy that purports to protect child victims. The Providence Journal noted that the outdated policy has shielded potentially important details about this case and others from the public.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Rhode island, Providence, Brett smiley, David morales, Michael english, Rhode island mayoral race, Mayoral race, Child predators, Child predator, Child molester, Politics