News
NHTSA’s incoming senior safety adviser has a serious anti-Tesla Autopilot and FSD bias
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently confirmed that Duke University professor Missy Cummings is poised to be named as its new senior safety adviser. While her credentials as a computer science professor and background as a person knowledgeable about autonomous driving technologies would likely be an essential resource for the NHTSA, Dr. Cummings has exhibited something quite peculiar in social media — She appears to have a serious bias against Tesla, particularly surrounding the company’s Autopilot and Full Self Driving programs.
Over the years, Dr. Cummings, through her personal Twitter account, frequently posted overtly negative statements about Tesla, its vehicles, and its CEO Elon Musk. A number of Tesla owners and supporters who claimed to have not interacted with Dr. Cummings online also observed that they seem to have been preemptively blocked by the incoming NHTSA safety official.
Everybody has a personal bias about something they are passionate about. As such, it is understandable for the Duke University professor to adopt a skeptical stance on Tesla and its Autopilot and FSD programs. There is such a thing as a healthy dose of skepticism, after all. However, or at least based on the incoming NHTSA senior safety official’s Twitter feed, Dr. Cummings appears to have crossed the line from objective to subjective when it comes to Tesla and its technologies. The same goes for her stance regarding CEO Elon Musk. In March 2020, for example, Dr. Cummings seemingly joked about needing someone to stop her from punching Elon Musk in the face.
Punching jokes aside, the Duke University professor also stands as a present member of Veoneer, a Swedish LIDAR company. Publicly available SEC disclosures indicate that Dr. Cummings has received restricted stock units in Veoneer worth about $400,000 a year at present market prices. Considering that Tesla is a company directly competing with Veoneer in the way that it is developing autonomous driving systems with only a vision-based system, there seems to be a conflict of interest at play.
It should be noted that Dr. Cummings’ seat at Veoneer was not disclosed when she published a paper (which was later updated to remove inaccurate details about a fatal Tesla crash) criticizing systems such as Autopilot for their possible dangers. And so far, the incoming NHTSA senior safety adviser has not shared if she would be leaving her post at the Swedish LIDAR company, especially since she would soon be advising a US safety agency on driver-assist systems that adopt both LIDAR and non-LIDAR solutions.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Cummings’ criticism of Tesla and its Autopilot and FSD programs seems to stem from the fact that the company’s vehicles lack of equipment such as the LIDAR sensors provided by Veoneer. In an appearance at The Robot Brains Podcast earlier this year, the Duke University professor remarked that she is “basically an albatross around Elon’s and Tesla’s neck” and that “Where (she’s) going after is his (Elon Musk’s) desire to drop radar off of his cars and now go to vision-only.”
Dr. Cummings further noted that “There’s no vision research out there which doesn’t think that’s crazy and is gonna kill someone.” In a 2019 tweet, the incoming NHTSA safety official also noted that the NHTSA should require Tesla to disable Autopilot, since it “easily causes mode confusion.” This was a similar take from her post in 2018 when she noted that Elon Musk’s Tesla is the only “killer robot” present today.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has noted on Twitter that the Biden administration’s appointment of Dr. Cummings as a senior safety official for the NHTSA is quite “odd,” and in a later post, Musk also observed that “Objectively, her track record is extremely biased against Tesla.” In response to Musk’s post, the incoming senior safety official for the NHTSA noted that she was “happy to sit down and talk with you (Musk) anytime.” Hopefully, such a discussion could really happen with as little bias from both sides as possible, and with absolutely zero punches being thrown at the Tesla CEO.
The NHTSA’s appears to have its eye on Tesla recently. Earlier this month alone, and as the agency’s probe on several Autopilot crashes on stationary emergency vehicles continued, the NHTSA asked Tesla to explain why it rolled out a safety improvement to Autopilot through an over-the-air software update without issuing a recall.
This was quite an interesting question from the NHTSA, seeing as the Autopilot update was done as proactive measure that would allow Teslas to operate in a safer manner on the road, not as a response to a defect. This was despite Tesla accounting for only nine crash injuries with first responder vehicles in the past 12 months, a small fraction of the 8,000 injuries that were reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) involving a stationary emergency vehicle in the United States in a year.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
