News
Opinion: Tesla Autopilot NHTSA investigation headlines are out of control
There is a difference between slant and straight-up inaccuracy. Slant is unavoidable as it typically relies on a writer’s personal biases. Making connections that could be immediately debunked with the slightest modicum of research, however, is completely avoidable. This was exactly the case on Monday as a wave of negative Tesla news emerged following an announcement that the NHTSA is launching a formal investigation on Autopilot over 11 incidents that involved Teslas crashing into parked emergency vehicles.
The NHTSA Investigation
The NHTSA’s ODI Resume was very brief and direct. And while the agency did state that it would be evaluating Autopilot for Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y from model year 2014 to 2021, the NHTSA did note that its investigation would involve 11 incidents in the United States. These incidents resulted in 17 injuries and one fatality.
Tesla prides itself on being a company that focuses intently on the safety of its vehicles, and in this light, investigations that would make systems like Autopilot ultimately safer for the general public would likely be welcomed by the company. Elon Musk, after all, has posted in the past that he agrees with the NHTSA “99.9% of the time.” The Tesla CEO has also specified on Twitter that he thinks the “NHTSA is great.”
If one were to look at the coverage of the investigation in some mainstream media outlets, however, one would think that things are far more dire.
The Coverage and Missing Details
It is true that negative stories attract more eyeballs. This is something that has been true even before the days of online journalism. And in this landscape, a company led by a rebel CEO that no longer issues comments on issues is the perfect target. This could be seen in the headlines that immediately followed the NHTSA” s announcement. CNN’s headline, “Tesla is under investigation because its cars can’t stop hitting emergency vehicles,” is a great example of this. It’s sensationalist and it suggests that the issue being investigated by the NHTSA is something extremely grave. And this is just one outlet.
Other news outlets such as CNBC proceeded to feature Ford former Co-CEO Mark Fields, who proceeded to highlight that the NHTSA’s investigation covers Teslas from a large time period. Persistent Tesla bears were also featured for their take on the news despite their past accuracy on the EV maker.
Interestingly enough, one of the things that were not mentioned much (if at all) in the general coverage of the NHTSA Autopilot investigation was the state of the drivers in some of the incidents. As aggregated by some Tesla watchers online, a good number of the drivers in the 11 crashes were hardly the most attentive. Two incidents were deemed as DUI cases, for example, and one driver had a suspended license. Four cases involved driver inattention, with one incident having a driver who did not have their hands on the wheel for 3 minutes 41 seconds. The other four incidents have no police report readily available.
An Unrelated Incident
On the same day as the NHTSA announced its investigation, a Tesla Model 3 was involved in a car crash at a school parking lot in the UK, injuring six people. It did not take long before Reuters, citing a report from The Telegraph, ran with a headline which read “Six injured as self-driving Tesla crashes in school car park in Southern England – Telegraph.” Such a headline immediately raised red flags, the first being that no Teslas owned by consumers today are “self-driving” cars per se. They have advanced driver-assist features, but those still require constant attention.
This headline grabbed a lot of attention — that much was no surprise. What was unfortunate was that as it became clear that the Tesla involved in the incident could not be a “self-driving” car, Reuters proceeded to issue a retraction on the article, stating that it had updated the story to correct the headline and drop the “self-driving” reference. The publication, however, kept a section of the article which still stated that it remained to be seen if the Tesla that injured six people had a driver behind the wheel at the time of the incident.
The Perfect Target
Tesla is no stranger to negative reporting, and that’s to be expected. Some negative slant from a reporter covering news about the company is pretty understandable, after all. However, it becomes a bit more difficult to justify errors such as those committed by Reuters about the UK incident. Even a little research on the features of a Model 3 in Europe would show that there are no “self-driving” Teslas right now, after all, and narratives which seem to hint at rogue electric cars are ultimately just as fantastical as they are inaccurate.
This may not be Tesla’s first rodeo with false news, but it’s not like there is nothing that could be done. Tesla China, for example, has adopted an assertive external relations and legal campaign that pursues false reporting on Giga Shanghai, and it has worked to great effect. Whether a similar strategy would work in the United States is up for question, but there seems to be few reasons remaining why Tesla should just allow itself to be a punching bag for misinformation without even airing its side.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
