News
‘Average Americans’ can’t afford EVs: Former White House official, others rip Buttigieg
The all-too-common myth that electric vehicles are not affordable to the average American is now being reignited by former Trump White House Communications Official Mercedes Schlapp, among others, who ripped Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for suggesting that the answer to rising gas prices was to buy an electric car.
Sec. Buttigieg appeared on MSNBC on Sunday to suggest that American consumers can avoid soaring gas prices by purchasing an electric vehicle. Buttigieg said to Jonathan Capehart in an interview on “The Sunday Show” that EV owners will have a “$12,500 discount” thanks to the new EV incentive plan that was included in the House-passed “Build Back Better” plan from President Joe Biden. While only the Chevrolet Bolt EV will qualify for the full $12,500 amount, nearly every EV built in the United States will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit.
Buttigieg also went on to say that those in rural areas would be most likely to benefit from the purchase of an EV. “The people who stand to benefit most from owning an EV are often rural residents who have the most distances to drive, who burn the most gas, and underserved urban residents in areas where there are higher gas prices and lower-income,” Buttigieg claimed. “They would gain the most by having that vehicle. These are the very residents who have not always been connected to electric vehicles that are viewed as kind of a luxury item.”
Transportation Sec. Buttigieg: Buy an EV and ‘never worry about gas prices again’
However, not everyone was a fan of Buttigieg’s suggestion to transition to EVs. Former White House Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp said that EVs are not widely affordable, and only people “in the world that Pete Buttigieg lives in” can afford them. “Average Americans struggling with record-high gas prices? Not so much,” she added.
“Let me assure you there is very little overlap between ‘families that can afford to buy a $50,000 electric car,” Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation said. “And ‘families that are worried about gas prices because an extra $50 a month is actually a week’s worth of groceries.’ Do you know what a lot of families could do with that extra $50 a month/$1300 a year?” Swearer added according to the New York Post.
Kelley Blue Book lists the average transaction price in October 2021 for a new vehicle at $46,036, with Tesla offering an average price of $54,560. It should be noted that Tesla has two Model 3 variants under the average $54,560 price. The Model Y’s Long Range variant is available for slightly more at $58,990. However, these prices are before factoring in federal incentives, gas savings, and money saved through lack of maintenance. If the minimum $7,500 EV tax credit were available right now, all but one of Tesla’s five mass-market vehicle variants would fall under the average cost of a Tesla vehicle. The Model 3’s Rear Wheel Drive and Long Range All-Wheel Drive configurations would cost less than the national average for a new car. Tesla vehicles would qualify for $8,000 in incentives: $7,500 for being built in the U.S. and an additional $500 for equipping a U.S.-made battery.
Now, if we factor in other vehicles in the United States, the Chevrolet Bolt, which has had production suspended until 2022 due to battery malfunctions, has several sub-$30,000 variants available. Ford’s Mustang Mach-E starts at $42,895 and can go as low as $35,395 after incentives. Three of Ford’s four Mach-E variants would fall under KBB’s $46,036 average price after incentives.
Unfortunately, politicians with widespread media coverage are able to spread misinformation regarding the price of electric vehicles. Many EVs are available on the market today are actually extremely affordable. Even if the price of an EV is slightly higher than a gas car, owners can expect savings through missed trips to the gas pump and a lack of oil changes. But, after all, we’ve learned that the White House, at nearly any time and under nearly any administration, has missed the mark regarding EVs, and it has not been uncommon for politicians to spread information that is not necessarily accurate.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.