News
Behind the Tesla and Elon Musk Attacks: Big Energy and Conservative Groups
Elon Musk and Tesla Motors have their share of detractors, some of whom have become more vicious than usual as of late. According to a recent article published by The Drive, focused attacks on Tesla and SpaceX emanate from conservative group Citizens for the Republic. CftR is an organization founded in 1977 by Ronald Reagan that calls itself ” a national organization dedicated to revitalizing the conservative movement.” Its stated mission is to “ferret out corruption that wastes taxpayer dollars and continually undermines the American people in favor of the powerful and profitable.” CftR lists its national chairman as Laura Ingraham, a right wing pundit and possible press secretary for Donald Trump.
Musk and his various companies are frequently singled out as examples of taxpayer waste. CftR’s recent activity focuses on a website called Stop Elon From Falling Again whose motto is, “The One Stop Database On Stopping Elon Musk.” It claims “Elon Musk has defrauded the American Taxpayer out of over $4.9 Billion in the form of subsidies, grants, and other favors.”
One of CftR’s regular themes is that incentives promoting solar power are wasteful. “The solar industry has been a pet-industry of the Obama Administration and those who claim to care about the environment. Washington has given Solar companies millions in federal tax credits and subsidies that are costing taxpayers millions, despite posting losses year after year. When Solyndra, Ener1, and others get government tax breaks, the American people need to know. The US government needs to stop meddling in industries and create an atmosphere that allows to prosper without pledging taxpayer support.”
The group fails to mention an article in the New York Times from earlier this year that alleges fossil fuel companies get $4 billion a year in subsidies from the federal government. Nor does it include a reference to the finding of the International Monetary Fund earlier this year that fossil fuel interests receive more than $5 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies from governments around the world each year. When it comes to ferreting out wasteful government spending, people tend to overlook benefits that flow to activities they approve of — or are paid to promote.
Can anyone uncover who is really writing these fake pieces? Can't be skankhunt42. His work is better than this. https://t.co/Qs69AFMGE5
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 22, 2016
Elon has good reason to be suspicious of his rivals. Earlier this year, the Koch Brothers whose total income from fossil fuel related business estimated at $115 billion let it be known they had created a special $10 million a year fund to induce media to run stories favorable to fossil fuels. It worked.
On March 7, Forbes ran a story entitled Forget The Gas Tax, Here’s How Policymakers Make Drivers Pay. The subtitle is, “CAFE standards are not an effective climate change policy; they are a meaningless gesture.” On the same day, Fortune ran a story entitled What Electric-Car Lovers Get Wrong About Fossil Fuels. On March 11, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed entitled Voters Should Be Mad at Electric Cars, sensationalizing it with a subheading “If Trump and Sanders fans hate absurd handouts to elites, the Tesla economy is the place to look.”
Also on March 11, The Herald Scotland ran this story: Time to get off the back of fossil fuels and show support rather than back daft divestment campaigns. “Koch Industries does not oppose electric vehicles,” said Philip Ellender, a spokesman for the company. “What we oppose is government subsidizing and mandating a particular form of energy over another. We oppose all subsidies – even for those industries in which we participate.”
Does that sound oddly similar to CftR’s line about how “The US government needs to stop meddling in industries and create an atmosphere that allows to prosper without pledging taxpayer support?” How about this statement from Donald Trump during the campaign? Last May, as reported by CNN, he told the press, “The government should not pick winners and losers, instead it should remove obstacles to exploration.” From Charles’ and David’s mouth to Trump’s ear, perhaps?
Yahoo says, “Musk attracts an unusually large and varied number of shrouded online attacks, including phony op-ed pieces, websites with shadowy backers, and individuals who hide behind aliases.” For whatever reason, some people have it in for Elon Musk and are hoping against hope to see him fail. That may be the reason why Tesla Motors is one of the most shorted stocks on Wall Street. Even analysts are divided into separate camps. The Motley Fool generally looks favorably on the company and its prospects for success. Seeking Alpha often takes a more pessimistic view.
In the digital world, truth and fiction are intertwined in a way that makes it hard for people to glean accurate information. Fake news is everywhere and may even have played a key role in the recent election according to the Washington Post. How does anyone know who or what to believe?
Let the trolls launch their slings and arrows Elon’s way. They will not deter him from moving towards his goal — a world where fossil fuels stay in the ground and abundant renewable electricity from the sun is the order of the day.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
