A former Tesla executive has seemingly confirmed the claims that were outlined in a report from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which provided some context behind the rift between Tesla and the Joe Biden administration. As per the report, Tesla officials attempted to forge close ties with the Biden administration multiple times after the president’s inauguration, but they were rejected.
Tesla was a dominant force in the United States electric vehicle sector in early 2021 when the Biden administration was making plans to boost electric cars in the country. But while Tesla produced about two-thirds of EVs on US roads then, the company’s workforce was also not unionized. Thus, despite Tesla’s efforts to reach out to the Biden administration in an effort to connect Musk to the US President, the company reportedly received the cold shoulder.
Citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, The Wall Street Journal noted that “Biden officials didn’t want to anger the powerful United Auto Workers union, which leaned on the White House to keep its distance from Musk.” The WSJ report also cited a former official from the UAW, who noted that “We made it clear to the administration about where things were” and that “we didn’t have to make an ultimatum. They understood.”
It was reportedly these factors that led to Tesla being snubbed by the Biden administration in its EV summit and US President Joe Biden crediting GM CEO Mary Barra for leading and electrifying “the entire automobile industry.” Musk, together with Tesla’s leaders, were reportedly outraged by the US President’s comments, especially since in the fourth quarter of 2021, when Biden credited the GM CEO for being an EV leader, Tesla delivered over 115,000 electric cars in the United States, while General Motors produced just 26 EVs.
This is a rare article about Tesla/Elon, where I can’t find any factual errors and it has good context.— Rohan Patel (@rohanspatel) July 28, 2024
In comments on X, former Tesla Vice President of Global Public Policy and Business Development Rohan Patel confirmed that The Wall Street Journal’s report was accurate. In his post, Patel noted that “This is a rare article about Tesla/Elon, where I can’t find any factual errors and it has good context.”
Elon Musk’s notable shift from being a supporter of the Biden administration into one of the US President’s critics is unfortunate, but a look at the CEO’s comments over the years does show that his disdain did not come out of nowhere. In January 2021, just a few months after Biden was elected as the US President, Musk told Fortune in a lengthy phone call that he was delighted about Biden’s presidential win.
“I’m super fired up that the new administration is focused on climate. I think this is great. I feel very optimistic about the future of sustainable energy with the new administration. Not that we should get complacent or anything, but the wind is at our back for solving the climate crisis with the new administration,” Musk said at the time.
Just a few weeks after that, Musk noted in an appearance at the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that he had talked to the Biden administration about the prospect of adopting a carbon tax. The Biden administration believed that a carbon tax would be too politically difficult, Musk claimed.
“I talked to the Biden administration, and they were like ‘Well, this seems too politically difficult.’ And I was like, ‘Well, this is obviously a thing that should happen.’ And by the way, SpaceX would be paying a carbon tax too. So I’m like, you know, I think we should pay it too. It’s not like we shouldn’t have carbon generating things. It’s just that there’s got to be a price on this stuff,” Musk said.
By September 2021, Musk admitted in an interview at the 2021 Code Conference that the Biden administration is “not the friendliest administration,” and “maybe a little biased.” He also noted that the Biden government “seems to be controlled by unions.” At this time, Tesla had already been snubbed at the White House EV summit, and Musk had started posting jokes about Biden “sleeping.” This was highlighted when Musk joked about Biden being asleep after the US President completely ignored SpaceX’s Inspiration4 mission, a private, All-American spaceflight trip with the first-ever all-civilian crew that raised over $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
