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 has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
