Connect with us

News

Opinion: Biden’s Tesla snub shows that clout, not innovation, is driving the American EV revolution

Published

on

There was something missing during the Biden administration’s EV event at the White House on Thursday. While the event was promoted as a landmark meeting that signifies America’s commitment to embracing sustainable transportation, the world’s undisputed EV leader was noticeably absent. Eventually, one thing became quite clear — it is clout, not innovation, that is still driving the mainstream American EV revolution. 

The Biden administration’s goals seemed good on paper, with the president announcing a national target of electric cars making up half of all new vehicle sales by 2030. Executives from the Detroit Big 3 were there, and for all intents and purposes, the event presented a venue for the administration and legacy automakers to somewhat pat themselves on the back for accepting sustainable transportation. This was despite the administration looking at hybrids, which are still equipped with a combustion engine, on the same playing field as zero-emissions vehicles like battery-electric cars. 

Tesla’s absence in the White House EV event was noticeable. Elon Musk confirmed on Twitter that Tesla was not invited at all, and during the event, even netizens were quick to point out that an American automaker that practically forced the entire auto industry to shift to electric cars was strangely not invited to the White House. In a press briefing, White House press secretary Jenn Psaki was directly asked about Tesla’s absence, and her response was telling. “These are the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers (UAW), so I’ll let you draw your own conclusion,” she said. 

The Elephant in the Room

Since its campaign days, the Biden administration has been clear that it supports electric vehicles. It was a good narrative, and it was the perfect foil to the Trump administration’s less-than-stellar commitment to zero-emissions transportation. Biden has always made it clear: he supports electric cars, especially those that are made by American labor. But over the past months, and amidst Biden’s appearances prior to the release of the Ford F-150 Lightning, one thing became clear: The administration is fond of EVs that are made in the United States — but only if they are produced through union work. 

Advertisement
Credit: CNBC Television

Electric cars that are made in America but not through union work like Teslas simply don’t get as much recognition — or any recognition at all. This was particularly evident in statements from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who hobbled through his responses in a CNBC appearance in what appeared to be a conscious effort to avoid stating Tesla’s name. It was also very evident in the fact that the US President personally made it a point to mention union work numerous times during the White House EV event. 

What is particularly interesting is that there is a reason why Tesla does not use union work in its Fremont Factory, unlike its Grohmann facility in Germany. It’s easy to run away with the narrative that Elon Musk is a tyrannical boss who intimidates employees to avoid them from joining the UAW, but the truth is more nuanced than that. It should be noted that the Fremont Factory, before it was bought by Tesla, was actually a plant powered by union work. And its closure, which effectively ended an ambitious project that was supposed to bring Japanese efficiency to American automaking, is something worth looking into.  

A History Swept Under the Rug

The United Auto Workers’ mission is to fight for the rights of all workers, organize unions, and bargain and win fair wages and benefits of its members. But the Fremont Factory, even in its early days, was not exactly a picture-perfect example of how the UAW and an automaker could coexist together. Bruce Lee, a former running back from the University of Arkansas who was in charge of the GM Fremont Factory’s union before the facility became NUMMI, noted that tensions were typically high between unionized workers and management. 

“It was considered the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States. And it was a reputation that was well-earned. Everything was a fight. They spent more time on grievances and on things like that than they did on producing cars. They had strikes all the time. It was just chaos constantly,” Lee said, adding that a 20% absenteeism was normal . This was echoed by noted author Jeffrey Liker, who interviewed workers at the GM Fremont plant’s early days. According to Liker, things were so bad at the plant that alcohol use, intercourse, and drug use were rampant among the employees. Defects in cars were typical too. Billy Hagerty, who used to put hoods and fenders on the plant, noted that quality of the cars from the GM Fremont plant was so bad that some Buick Regals had Buick Monte Carlo front ends, and vice versa. 

The NUMMI facility. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

The UAW was particularly powerful then, and this contributed to the GM Fremont factory’s workers practically running wild, with some workers intentionally putting coke bottles and loose bolts on door panels to spite the management and trigger customer complaints. GM eventually shut the plant down in 1982, laying off about 5,000 workers. The site was later transformed into New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) under a joint venture between Toyota and GM. But while the site hit the ground running thanks to Toyota’s highly efficient production techniques and its focus on teamwork, issues in the plant eventually arose. When General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009, GM announced that it would pull out of the facility, which eventually resulted in NUMMI being shut down for good. 

NUMMI’s shutdown was not received well by its unionized workers. During a meeting between NUMMI employees and UAW officials, things became so heated that an outraged older worker and union official ended up in a cussing match. A physical altercation almost happened. It was then no surprise that years later, and as CEO Elon Musk would note, the UAW would eventually fail to gain a foothold at the Tesla Fremont Factory. Tesla may not have hired the same workers from NUMMI, but some of those who work in the company today likely remember the history of the plant — and how it was let down by the UAW. 

Advertisement

An Unrestrained Narrative — The UAW’s Favorable Streak

The Biden administration seems all too content to sweep this history under the rug. If his comments during the White House EV event were anything to go by, America’s electric vehicle shift is only lauded and recognized by the powers that be if unions are involved. This is almost ironic, considering that as recently as 2019, about 48,000 unionized GM workers held a strike because the company was looking to adopt electric vehicles. UAW Research Director Jennifer Kelly explained the workers’ reservations in a statement to CNBC then. “EV powertrains are simple compared to internal combustion engines. The simplicity could reduce the amount of labor, and thus jobs, associated with vehicle production,” Kelly said. 

At this point, it seems high time to recognize that Tesla is an American success story that will not be celebrated, at least while the Biden administration is focused only on union-made electric vehicles. This means that Tesla would remain uninvited for landmark events such as this past Thursday’s EV meet at the White House, and it would likely remain a company that officials would refuse to acknowledge or name for its contributions to the country’s transition to electric cars. 

This means that a narrative — even one that may not necessarily be accurate — could start settling in. A look at a statement from Ford Executive Chair Bill Ford following the White House event shows that such a thing is now happening. “I am proud that Ford is leading the electric revolution… Ford has always been a leader in sustainability,” he noted. Such a statement would likely be accepted as truth by many, or at least by those who are unfamiliar with the uphill climb that Tesla has gone through in its efforts to force the industry to embrace EVs. 

Tesla’s Fremont Factory. (Credit: peekaystudio/Instagram)

And amidst this, the UAW would likely be painted quite favorably. A company like Tesla, not so much. What is rather interesting is that a similar event has happened in the past. Back when the NUMMI was under threat of being shut down, the UAW opted to point the blame at Toyota. This was despite GM being the first company that pulled out of the facility. An article from the The New York Times was panned by actual NUMMI workers after it stated that Toyota’s decision to close up shop was the “foulest form of ingratitude.” Ironically, even unionized workers from NUMMI had issues with how Toyota was painted then, with some stating that GM and the UAW must take just as much blame for the facility’s failure. 

A Tesla-shaped Punching Bag and an Underdog Story

What is rather interesting about the Biden administration’s focus on union-made EVs is the fact that organizations such as UAW have actually been steadily losing power. The UAW’s power may have been evident in the Fremont Factory’s pre-NUMMI days, but today, both its influence and its membership are quite far from their heights. UAW membership declined by nearly 10% in 2018 alone, with the organization losing over 35,000 members, and that was a year when 264,000 new manufacturing jobs were added to the US. 

Advertisement

If there is something that the Biden administration has done with its recent Tesla snub, it is to highlight the company’s image as an underdog. And this, in a lot of ways, could backfire. The world loves underdogs, after all, and Tesla has always been one, from its days as a small electric sports car maker with grand plans to change the auto industry, until today, when it serves as a punching bag of sorts for critics of both the climate crisis and EVs as a whole. Matt Johnson Ph.D., an author and a professor at Hult International Business School in San Francisco, noted that people will always be drawn to underdogs because they tend to drive feelings of empathy and hope. 

This is something that is very true of Tesla. Tesla may dwarf legacy auto today by market cap, but things like the Biden administration’s White House snub helps the company maintain its underdog status. This is arguably one of the reasons why Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, have such a strong following. The “cult” of Elon Musk and Twitter controversies and debates aside, it is difficult not to give a nod of respect to a company that pulled legacy automakers kicking and screaming towards an electric age. And the more Tesla is ignored or snubbed, the more influence the company may actually have. 

“When we are led to believe that a company succeeded against external disadvantages (like an economic recession, for instance), we identify with the situation. The more we identify and internalize the gravity of the story, the more we root for it. There’s evidence indicating that brands with an underdog story can increase the intention to purchase and influence brand loyalty,” Johnson noted

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up. 

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027

The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls.

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX is looking to start launching its next-generation Starlink V2 satellites in mid-2027 using Starship.

The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls during remarks at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.

“With Starship, we’ll be able to deploy the constellation very quickly,” Nicolls stated. “Our goal is to deploy a constellation capable of providing global and contiguous coverage within six months, and that’s roughly 1,200 satellites.”

Nicolls added that once Starship is operational, it will be capable of launching approximately 50 of the larger, more powerful Starlink satellites at a time, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.

Advertisement

The initial deployment of roughly 1,200 next-generation satellites is intended to establish global and contiguous coverage. After that phase, SpaceX plans to continue expanding the system to reach “truly global coverage, including the polar regions,” Nicolls said.

Currently, all Starlink satellites are launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The next-generation fleet will rely on Starship, which remains in development following a series of test flights in 2025. SpaceX is targeting its next Starship test flight, featuring an upgraded version of the rocket, as soon as this month.

Starlink is currently the largest satellite network in orbit, with nearly 10,000 satellites deployed. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the business could generate approximately $9 billion in revenue for SpaceX in 2026.

Nicolls also confirmed that SpaceX is rebranding its direct-to-cell service as Starlink Mobile.

Advertisement

The service currently operates with 650 satellites capable of connecting directly to smartphones and has approximately 10 million monthly active users. SpaceX expects that figure to exceed 25 million monthly active users by the end of 2026.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report

The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.

Published

on

Credit: xAI

Elon Musk’s social platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI are reportedly preparing to repay approximately $17.5 billion in outstanding debt in full. 

The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.

Morgan Stanley, which arranged the debt financing for both companies, has reportedly informed existing lenders that X and xAI plan to pay back the full amount of the $17.5 billion debt. Bloomberg’s sources did not disclose where the capital for the repayment would be coming from.

X, formerly known as Twitter, assumed roughly $12.5 billion in debt during Musk’s acquisition of the company. xAI separately borrowed about $5 billion through bonds and loans last June. The two firms merged last year under xAI Holdings.

Advertisement

Bloomberg noted that portions of the debt are relatively recent and may carry early repayment penalties. xAI’s $3 billion in high-yield bonds are expected to be redeemed at 117 cents on the dollar, reflecting a premium since the debt was expected to stay outstanding for at least two years.

X has been servicing tens of millions of dollars in monthly debt payments, while xAI has reportedly been burning approximately $1 billion in cash per month as it invests heavily in data centers, chips, and AI talent. That being said, xAI also concluded a funding round in January, where it raised $20 billion of new equity.

The repayment plans come as Musk consolidates several of his businesses. SpaceX recently acquired xAI, making it a subsidiary as the company explores plans for space-based data centers. The combined entity has been valued at approximately $1.25 trillion.

Bloomberg previously reported that SpaceX is targeting a confidential IPO filing as soon as this month, potentially positioning the private space firm for a public listing later this year. Representatives for Morgan Stanley declined to comment, and X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Giga Berlin head calls out Handelsblatt’s claimed 2025 production figures

Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.

Published

on

tesla-model-y-giga-berlin-delivery
Credit: Tesla

Tesla Gigafactory Berlin’s plant manager has publicly pushed back against recent reporting by German business publication Handelsblatt, which cited reportedly erroneous data about the factory’s production figures and financial performance.

Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.

In his LinkedIn post, Thierig called out Handelsblatt’s claim that 149,000 Model Y vehicles were produced at Giga Berlin in 2025. He noted that “the article is simply filled from front to back with false information and claims!

“I have to set the record straight here! In the last article about Tesla in Grünheide, the Handelsblatt speaks e.g. of 149,000 Model Ys built in 2025. WRONG! 

Advertisement

“In 2025, we again produced over 200,000 vehicles. And this despite the fact that we stopped production in Q1 for the changeover to the new Model Y and then ramped it up again to 5,000 units per week over several weeks,” Thierig wrote. 

He added that production increased each quarter in 2025 compared to the prior quarter and stated that more than 700,000 Model Y units have been produced at Grünheide since manufacturing began in 2022. For the first quarter of 2026, he stated that the factory is planning another production increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025.

Thierig also questioned Handelsblatt’s reported 0.74% profit margin, writing that how the publication calculated the figure “remains reserved for their secret ‘calculation skills.’”

Beyond production data, Thierig highlighted Tesla’s broader footprint in Germany, stating that the company has invested more than €5 billion in Grünheide since 2020 and created nearly 11,000 permanent, above-tariff jobs. He added that Tesla is currently investing nearly €100 million into battery cell production at the site, which is expected to generate several hundred additional positions.

Advertisement

In a follow-up comment, Thierig noted that he did communicate with the publication’s editor-in-chief in an effort to “start fresh,” but he was informed that Handelsblatt’s current approach works just fine. 

“Last year, I spoke to a representative of the Handelsblatt editor-in-chief and suggested that we “start anew” again. Handelsblatt turned down this offer on the grounds that their current approach works well for them,” Thierig noted. 

Sönke Iwersen, Head of Investigative Research at Handelsblatt, responded to Thierig’s post, stating that the newspaper’s figures were based on Tesla’s own annual financial statements for the Grünheide entity.

He cited reported 2024 revenue of €7.68 billion, operating profit of €156.8 million, and net income after taxes of €55.6 million. Iwersen also referenced prior public comments from Elon Musk about Cybertruck demand, noting the gap between reported pre-orders and subsequent annual sales figures. 

Advertisement

He also stated that the works council election eligibility figures Giga Berlin had dropped to 10,703 employees today from 12,415 two years ago.

“As far as production figures are concerned, these are figures from the data service provider Inovev. This is also stated in the article. Please compare this with Elon Musk’s information on demand for the Cybertruck. According to Musk, there were one million pre-orders. In the first year, 39,000 units were sold, in the second year 20,000. How can this be explained? With a million pre-orders?

“You yourself have repeatedly pointed out in recent months that no jobs would be cut in Grünheide because Tesla is different from the competition. Now a new works council is being elected in Grünheide. 10,703 people are eligible to vote. Two years ago, 12,415 people were eligible to vote. So there were exactly 1712 fewer from 2024 to 2026,” Iwersen wrote. 

Continue Reading