News
Tesla faces biggest challenge yet as oil industry fights to maintain its hold on US auto
Tesla might have overcome several notable hurdles this year, but the electric car maker is now facing what could very well be its biggest challenge yet in the United States. As the company hits its stride with the production of the Model 3 and as it prepares to ramp its energy business next year, a rather discreet movement is underway to ensure that America remains waist-deep in oil.
A recent expose published by The New York Times outlines an active campaign to roll back the country’s existing vehicle emissions rules. Earlier this year, the US government laid out a plan that aims to ease fuel efficiency standards in the country. The movement’s central point is simple — since America is so awash in oil, the country no longer needs to worry about energy conservation.
The publication’s investigation noted that the movement, which was supported by proposals in Congress and social media campaigns, is backed by some of the United States’ largest oil interests. Marathon Petroleum, the US’ largest refiner, as well as a policy network with ties to billionaire Charles G. Koch, contributed to help push the movement’s agenda. Overall, the creation of the proposal and its support from the oil industry is understandable, considering that the advent of electric vehicles threatens the bottom line of the industry. Less gas-thirsty cars on the road mean lower sales of gasoline. More pure electric vehicles on the road, such as Tesla’s electric cars, are an even bigger threat.
The US government’s initiative takes aim at the country’s emissions standards, which practically requires automakers to double the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by 2025. Under the government’s proposal, emissions standards would be frozen at 2020 levels. The NYT estimates that if the government’s planned rollback is implemented, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by more than the amount of gases put out by midsize countries such as Austria, Greece, or Bangladesh in one year.
Lawmakers and delegations across the United States have backed the pro-oil campaign, with several groups sending letters to the Transportation Department to express their support. The publication noted that these letters featured much of the same phrasing, particularly a line directly referencing the preferences of American car buyers. “With oil scarcity no longer a concern, historically low gas prices, increasingly ambitious CAFE requirements, it is important that NHTSA and EPA review the mandate to ensure that the US is protecting consumers from higher costs and still allowing for choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” one of the letters stated.
The oil-backed movement, though, is currently encountering some pushback from members of the government. Among these is Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, who expressed his criticism of the administration’s campaign. In a statement to the NYT, Carper noted that “oil interests are cynically trying to gin up support in Congress for the weakest possible standards to ensure that cars and SUVs have to rely on even more oil.” The senator added that “If this attempt is successful, the outcome will be a blow to the auto industry, consumers, and our environment.”
At the forefront of the resistance against the oil-backed campaign is California, home to Tesla’s headquarters and electric car factory. California pledged to stick to stricter emissions standards while maintaining an initiative to push the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. Thirteen states currently follow CA’s lead, representing about 35% of the United States’ nationwide car sales.
At the heart of the movement is the notion that American car buyers prefer large, gas-guzzling vehicles such as full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs over zero-emissions vehicles. This is a market barely touched by electric car makers today, with cars such as the Tesla Model X competing in the luxury SUV segment — a far smaller and notably higher-priced market than those populated by gas-powered best-sellers such as the Chevrolet Suburban. The same is true for the pickup truck market, which is home to the Ford F-150, the country’s best-selling vehicle. Serious all-electric pickup trucks such as Rivian’s R1T have been unveiled recently, but just like the Model X, the R1T is a luxury vehicle at its core.
Tesla has matured greatly this year, as the company overcame the Model 3’s production hell and as Elon Musk dealt with the repercussions of his online behavior. Considering the pro-oil movement stirring in the country, though, Tesla might need to take even greater responsibilities in the immediate future. Being a first mover in the electric car revolution, Tesla has the potential to take the lead in bringing compelling vehicles that can compete with gasoline-powered cars on both performance and price. The company is already accomplishing this with the Model 3, as proven by the electric sedan’s impressive sales figures over the past months. So far, though, Tesla is yet to release vehicles that can truly take on the country’s gas guzzlers at a similar price point.
This might change next year, as Tesla is expected to reveal the Model Y SUV. The Model Y is designed to be the SUV counterpart of the Model 3 — powerful, practical, and attainable by the everyman — and if Elon Musk’s recent statements are any indication, the vehicle’s unveiling could be just around the corner. Tesla could very well be targeting the mainstream, seven-seat SUV market with the Model Y, with Musk recently describing the vehicle as a “midsize SUV” during an appearance at the Recode Decode podcast. Musk has also indicated that Tesla might be releasing its pickup truck earlier than expected.
Tesla, though, is not capable of pushing the EV revolution alone. Thus, it is pertinent for EV startups such as Rivian and Bollinger Motors to step up to the challenge and perhaps accelerate the development and release of their electric vehicles. Legacy automakers that have committed to an electrified future, such as Porsche and Jaguar, must expedite the release of compelling zero-emissions cars as well. Porsche and Jaguar have already taken a notable step with the Taycan and the I-PACE, but far more steps need to be taken.
For its part, Tesla would best be served by a steadier hand in the coming quarters. With an aggressive campaign to keep the United States entrenched in oil ongoing, Tesla must lead in a manner that is quick, efficient, and steady. Thus, mistakes such as the over-automation of the Model 3 assembly line, as well as Elon Musk’s Twitter gaffes, should best be avoided. Tesla is already a fast-evolving company, having grown to a major automaker in all but 15 years. Considering the presence of the government’s oil-backed campaign, though, Tesla is at a point where it must evolve even faster than before.
For now, the US’ auto industry appears to be facing a crossroads. On the one hand, there are companies such as Tesla proving that electric cars such as the Model 3 are viable and competitive. On the other hand, there are groups lobbying to maintain the auto industry’s reliance on oil. If a recent public hearing in Colorado is any indication, though, it appears that support for sustainable transportation is very much present.
Last month, Americans for Prosperity representative Shari Shiffer-Krieger attended a public hearing about Colorado’s pending decision to follow California’s lead. Americans for Prosperity is among the oil industry’s supporters. In Iowa, the group joined the fight against an initiative that would make it easier for gas stations to install electric car charging stations, and in Illinois, the group discouraged state officials from considering subsidies for EVs. Speaking to Colorado’s regulators, Shiffer-Krieger argued that buyers in the rugged state preferred powerful SUVs over stricter emissions rules.
“Coloradans deserve much better,” she said.
Colorado’s regulators accommodated her, before allying themselves with California.
Elon Musk
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
Musk promises SpaceX will cover Grok Bot purchase errors, tells users to shop beyond Amazon.
Elon Musk said SpaceX will reimburse users if Grok Bot botches a purchase or leaks their card details. A few hours later he was telling users to take their shopping elsewhere after Amazon shut the agent out.
The first post was a reply to an X user who said Grok Bot booked him a flight after he sent a photo of his credit card. “This works well,” Musk wrote. “If Grok @Bot makes a mistake with a purchase or leaks your card (never happened yet), SpaceX will make you whole,” said Musk.
The second came after another user posted the error his Grok Bot hit on Amazon: “Continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violates Amazon’s Conditions of Use, to which our customers have agreed.” The user said his bots can no longer order from the site. Musk answered, “Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal. There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!” He later added, “Maybe we should start a competitor to Amazon,” a possible hint at an X shopping service.
Just ask Grok @Bot to buy what you want someplace else and get a better deal.
There are far more purchasing websites than just Amazon!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026
The Amazon block did not start Thursday. A reply to Musk on October 10 said Amazon was blocking the bot, and Musk responded that Grok would find another way, then showed an order it placed on Lego’s website.
The latest reimbursement promise builds on late August when Musk told a Tesla investor weighing whether to give Grok Bot access to his bank accounts, “If Grok Bot messes up, we will make you whole,” as Teslarati covered when SpaceXAI added its Finance integration. That promise goes further than the company’s consumer terms, which make users responsible for what their agents do and generally cap liability at the greater of fees paid or $100. Neither Thursday post says those terms have changed, so for now it remains a statement on X rather than a published policy.
The two posts matter to Tesla owners because Grok Bot is no longer limited to a phone. Tesla brought it into its vehicles on September 22, and it is now enabled across every Cybercab and the rest of the Model Y Robotaxi fleet, as noted when Teslarati looked at why Grok Bot may be the Cybercab’s real advantage. A rider who asks for groceries or a coffee order is relying on retailers that let the agent in. Amazon has now said it will not, and Musk’s answer is to route around it.
Amazon has not commented publicly on the block in the posts Teslarati reviewed, and it is unclear whether Musk will follow through on a rival store.
So, how many of you do the vast majority of shopping on Amazon and hate that you do? Comment and let us know your thoughts!
Elon Musk
Elon Musk says Tesla’s Roadster demo could be a bang, quite literally
Musk says tonight’s Roadster demo will be a banger, maybe literally. The clues add up.
Elon Musk spent Wednesday and Thursday stacking teases on top of Tesla’s Roadster event, and the wording is getting harder to read as routine hype. Tesla streams the unveil tonight at 7:55 p.m. Central on X. Musk has called it “a candidate for greatest product demo of all time,” then added that “this demo will be a BANGER, probably metaphorically, though some chance literally.”
New Roadster is
beyond movies,
beyond imagination,
beyond human,
yet still made
by humans
on Earth— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026
The “some chance literally” part is the line to watch. The Roadster has been tied to a SpaceX option package since 2018, and as we reported when the date was announced, the system is reportedly codenamed A71 and uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped car could reach 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds. Cold gas thrusters firing at full output are loud, and reports ahead of the event say the car will be unmanned with spectators kept several hundred yards back. A literal bang could simply mean a demonstration that sounds like one, though it is also an admission that something could go wrong on stage.
Then there is “Timing is everything,” which Musk posted a day earlier. Stocktwits noted that 7:55 p.m. is 19:55 on a 24 hour clock, which echoes 1955, the year Marty McFly travels to in Back to the Future. Musk has made that connection before. In 2019 he replied to an animation of a flying DeLorean by saying the new Roadster “will actually do something like this.” Nothing from Tesla confirms the movie reference, but the stream time was chosen by someone, and Tesla has not been shy about this kind of wink.
Also, Tesla said it moved the event because it “can only be held outdoors,” and Musk then wrote that the demo was postponed “due to high winds,” as Teslarati covered at the time. A car running a standing start in front of a crowd shrugs off wind. A car that leaves the ground does not. The venue near SpaceX’s McGregor test site and the FAA airspace closures reported around the original date point the same way, though we also noted the delay could be a plain safety precaution. Musk has also described the new Roadster as “beyond movies, beyond imagination, beyond human, yet still made by humans on Earth.”
The only official figures remain the 2017 ones: 620 miles of range, a top speed above 250 mph, a 1.9 second 0 to 60 time, and prices of $200,000 for the base car and $250,000 for the Founders Series. Production is expected at Giga Texas in 2027 or 2028. Tesla has said the event will cover pricing, specifications and production targets, and its livestream preview has the full rundown. Tesla reports third quarter earnings on October 21, so whatever lands tonight will be fresh going into that call. We will have live coverage as soon as the stream starts.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Amazon shuts out Elon Musk’s Grok Bot so he may just build his own rival store
Elon Musk says Tesla’s Roadster demo could be a bang, quite literally
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
