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

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 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.
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.

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.
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.
Elon Musk
Tesla Earnings: financial expectations and what we should to hear about
In terms of discussions, Tesla earnings calls are usually a great time to get some clarification on the company’s outlook for its current and future projects.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) will report its earnings for the first quarter of 2026 this evening after the market closes, and analysts have already put out their expectations from a financial standpoint for the company’s first three months of the year.
Additionally, there will be plenty of things that will be discussed, including the recent expansion of the Robotaxi program, the Roadster unveiling, and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) approvals across the globe.
Financial Expectations
Wall Street consensus expectations put Tesla’s Earnings Per Share (EPS) at $0.36, while revenues are expected to come in around $22.35 billion.
This would compare to an EPS of $0.27 and $19.34 billion compared to Tesla’s Q1 2025. Last quarter, EPS came in at $0.50 on $29.4 billion of revenue.
Tesla beat analyst expectations last quarter, but the next trading day, the stock fell nearly 3.5 percent. We never quite can gauge how the market will respond to Tesla’s earnings; we’ve seen shares rise on a miss and fall on a beat.
It really goes on the news, and investor consensus, it seems.
What to Expect
In terms of discussions, Tesla earnings calls are usually a great time to get some clarification on the company’s outlook for its current and future projects. Right now, the big focus of investors is the Robotaxi program, the Roadster unveiling, and what the outlook for Full Self-Driving’s expansion throughout Europe and the rest of the world looks like.
Robotaxi
Tesla just recently expanded its unsupervised Robotaxi program to Dallas and Houston, joining Austin as the first cities in the U.S. to have access to the company’s ride-hailing suite.
Tesla expands Unsupervised Robotaxi service to two new cities
Some saw this move as a quick effort to turn attention away from a delivery miss and an anticipated miss on earnings. However, we’ve seen Tesla be more than deliberate with its expansion of the Robotaxi suite, so it’s hard to believe the company would make this move if it were not truly ready to do so.
The company is also working to expand its U.S. ride-hailing service outside of Texas and California, and recently filed paperwork to build a Robotaxi-exclusive Supercharger stall.
Expansion is planned for Florida, Nevada, and Arizona at some point this year, with more states to follow.
Roadster Unveiling
The Roadster unveiling was slated for April 1, and then pushed back (once again) to “probably late April,” according to Elon Musk.
It does not appear that the Roadster unveiling will happen within that time frame, at least not to our knowledge. Nobody has received media or press invites for a Roadster unveiling, and given the lofty expectations set for the vehicle by Musk and Co., it seems like something they’d want to show off to the public.
The Roadster has become a truly frustrating project for Tesla and its fans; evidently, there is something that is not up to the expectations Musk and others have. Meanwhile, fans are essentially waiting for something that is six years late.
At this point, also given the company’s focus on autonomy, it almost seems more worth it to just cancel it, remove any and all timelines and expectations, and surprise people with something crazy down the line, maybe in two or three years. There should be no talk of it.
Full Self-Driving Global Expansion
We expect Musk and Co. to shed some details on where it stands with other European government bodies, as it recently was able to roll out FSD (Supervised) to customers in the Netherlands.
Spain is also working with Tesla to assess FSD’s viability as a publicly available option for owners.
With that being said, there should be some additional information for investors as they listen to the call; no talk of it would be a pretty big letdown.
Optimus
There will likely be a date set for the Gen 3 Optimus unveiling, and we’re hopeful Tesla can keep that date set in stone and meet it. Not reaching timelines is a relatively minor issue, but a company can only do this for so long before its fans and investors start to lose trust and disregard any talk about dates.
It seems this is happening already.
Optimus has been pegged as Tesla’s big money maker for the future. The goals and expectations are high, but it is a privilege to have that sort of pressure when investors know the company’s capability.
News
Tesla just unlocked sales to 50,000+ government agencies
It marks a significant step in expanding Tesla’s presence in the public sector, where procurement processes have traditionally slowed electric vehicle adoption.
Tesla just unlocked sales to over 50,000 government agencies by entering a new agreement with Sourcewell, a purchasing cooperative.
Tesla entered a new master purchasing agreement with Sourcewell, the largest government purchasing cooperative in the U.S. This will enable streamlined sales of its EVs to more than 50,000 U.S. public entities. Tesla entered Designated Contract 0813525-TES, and the agreement covers Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck, and potentially other vehicles the company could release.
It marks a significant step in expanding Tesla’s presence in the public sector, where procurement processes have traditionally slowed electric vehicle adoption.
The deal allows eligible agencies, including cities, school districts, state governments, and higher-education institutions, to purchase Tesla vehicles directly through Sourcewell without conducting their own lengthy competitive bidding or request-for-proposal (RFP) processes.
Pricing is pre-negotiated and capped, providing transparency and predictability. Agencies simply register for a Sourcewell account online or by phone and place orders under the existing contract. This cooperative model aggregates demand across thousands of members, reducing administrative costs and time while ensuring compliance with public procurement rules.
For Tesla, the agreement removes major barriers to government fleet sales. Public-sector procurement cycles often stretch 12 to 18 months due to bidding requirements and committee reviews.
Tesla buyers in the U.S. military can get $1,000 off Cybertruck purchases
By securing the master contract, Tesla gains immediate, simplified access to a massive customer base that previously faced friction in adopting EVs. The company highlighted in its announcement that the partnership will help these 50,000-plus agencies “save thousands of $$$ in operating costs for their vehicle fleet over time” through lower maintenance, energy efficiency, and the elimination of tailpipe emissions.
The initial four-year term runs through November 13, 2029, with options for up to three one-year extensions, offering long-term stability for both parties.
Sourcewell’s role is central to execution. As a cooperative purchasing organization, it negotiates and manages vendor contracts on behalf of its members, then makes them available nationwide. Participating entities contact Tesla’s dedicated fleet team or Sourcewell representatives to complete purchases, bypassing redundant paperwork.
This structure accelerates fleet electrification while maintaining fiscal accountability—agencies receive pre-vetted pricing and terms without reinventing the wheel for each vehicle order.
The partnership positions Tesla to capture a larger share of the public fleet market, where total cost of ownership often favors electric vehicles once procurement hurdles are removed.
For government buyers, it translates to faster deployment of sustainable fleets, reduced long-term expenses, and alignment with environmental mandates. As more agencies transition, the contract could contribute to broader EV infrastructure growth and taxpayer savings across the country.
Elon Musk
How much of SpaceX will Elon Musk own after IPO will surprise you
SpaceX’s IPO filing confirms Musk will maintain his voting power to make key decisions for the company.
Elon Musk will retain dominant voting control of SpaceX after it goes public, according to the company’s IPO prospectus that was filed with the SEC. The filing reveals a dual-class equity structure giving Class B shareholders 10 votes each, concentrating power with Musk and a handful of other insiders, while Class A shares sold to public investors carry one vote.
Musk holds approximately 42% of SpaceX’s equity and controls roughly 79% of its votes through super-voting shares. He will simultaneously serve as CEO, CTO, and chairman of the nine-member board after the listing. Beyond that, the filing includes provisions that may limit shareholders’ influence over board elections and legal actions, forcing disputes into arbitration and restricting where they can be brought.
The case for Musk holding this level of control is grounded in SpaceX’s actual history. The company’s most important bets, from reusable rockets to a global satellite internet constellation, were decisions that ran against conventional aerospace thinking and would likely have faced resistance from a board accountable to investor gains. Fully reusable rockets were considered economically irrational by established industry players for years. Starlink, which now generates over $4 billion in annual operating profit, was widely dismissed as financially unviable when it was proposed. The argument for concentrated founder control seems straightforward, and the decisions that built SpaceX into what it is today required someone willing to ignore consensus and absorb years of losses.
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
For context, Musk’s position is significantly more dominant than Zuckerberg’s at Meta. The comparison with Tesla is also worth noting. When Tesla did its IPO in 2010, it did not issue dual-class shares. Musk has only recently pushed for enhanced voting protection, proposing at least 25% control at Tesla in 2024 after selling shares to fund his Twitter acquisition left him with around 13%.
SpaceX has clearly learned from that experience and structured the IPO differently by planning to allocate up to 30% of shares to retail investors, roughly three times the typical norm for a large offering. The roadshow is expected to begin the week of June 8, with a Nasdaq listing rumored to be a $1.75 trillion valuation and a $75 billion raise.