Property damage isn't a boycott, though. Words have meanings regardless of whag he meant to say. A boycott is just not buying stuff. There's no subtle connotations to consider. That's the problem. Either Trump doesn't know what words mean, or he's saying that intentionally avoiding buying Teslas is illegal and doesn't understand the law and constitution. Or he's a wannabe dictator with no respect for laws and the constitution. Those are the three options I can see here. If you've got a fourth, feel free to offer it.
Discussion
Right hence it being an illegal boycott.
Trump isn't the one that called first it a boycott. He just said it wasn't legal.
Meaning it doesn't fit the definition of a legal boycott. Meaning it isn't a boycott. You're not saying anything different. You're just confused by the words.
It's just more semantic manipulation. The left is calling it a boycott and it's not.
This is just stretching. You're going out of your way to favorably interpret what he said. He himself called it a boycott. There is zero legal distinction on legality of a boycott. The concept doesn't exist. If it's a boycott, it's legal.
If he wants to talk about the vandalism, there's a whole bunch of different terms for that, and Trump needs to use his big boy words to refer to it directly.