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. 

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. 

Advertisement
-

“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. 

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. 

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

Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened

Published

on

Credit: Grok Bot

Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.

Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.

Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”

The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.

On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”

Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.

Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.

Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.

The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.

When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.

A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.

Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.

The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.

For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.

Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.

The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise

Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.

Published

on

By

Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.

Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.


The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote.  The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.

Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.

Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.

From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.


The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.

For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit

Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.

Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.

Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.

The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”

Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”

Advertisement
-

The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.

Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.

Continue Reading