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.
News
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
News
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
News
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.