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.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
