News
Tesla’s snub from White House EV event: the Pros and Cons
As the United States government continues its monumental push of domestic automakers to transition to electrification, President Joe Biden and fellow White House staff have invited companies like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis to Washington to discuss what steps can be taken at the federal level to reach lofty EV delivery goals. However, perhaps the Biden Administration’s biggest ally, Tesla, wasn’t there because it was not extended an invitation. While CEO Elon Musk called the no-invite “odd,” there are potentially some bright spots in the situation, although the question of whether they outweigh the negatives is up to the reader to decide.
White House Electrification Event for U.S. Automakers
A relatively groundbreaking announcement that comes on the heels of President Biden’s request for legacy automakers to commit to a 40% electrified fleet by 2030, the companies agreed to a loftier but more satisfying figure of 50%. Now that half of all legacy automaker vehicles sold in 2030 will be electric, the big question is, how will it work? How will this plan be carried out?
Effectively, a game plan is likely being discussed among the White House staff and the leaders of the automakers who were invited to the event. With each company outlining specific goals through various announcements over the past several years, it is now time for action. The talking is done, a plan needs to be laid out and completed. The thing about electrification is that it is vastly different from building an ICE car, which each of these companies has long, storied, and successful histories of doing. Building an electric vehicle is a completely different project, and it goes much further than putting some electric motors and batteries in a pack and calling it an EV. There needs to be efficient and effective software, the batteries need to have a specific cell chemistry to operate for a long time, charging infrastructures need to be established, along with many other factors.
Tesla’s absence from White House EV event sidestepped in Pete Buttigieg interview
The overall issue that many of these companies have when transitioning to electrification is finding out how to make EVs operational. Far too many times, we have heard about incredible EVs that will come to the market in a few years, they are going to be amazing and effective, and they will show Tesla who is boss. But every time this has happened, these cars fall short of their mark.
The Cons: Why Tesla should be at the White House, no questions asked
Tesla has the experience to help these automakers navigate through extremely difficult times, which are likely to come based on many of these companies’ current situations with developing electric powertrains. Creating one or two vehicles and selling between thirty and fifty thousand of them definitely helps the cause. However, keeping these delivery rates and simply putting a few new bells and whistles in the interior doesn’t make it a new car. Consumers want new technology, new looks, new aesthetics. This means cars with more range, more features, and sleeker, more modern designs.
The goal should be for these automakers to develop a plan by 2030, about eight and a half years, to have four to five different electrified models on the road by that year. Rolling out that many new models while simultaneously engineering and building effective electric powertrains is extremely difficult. Many companies may find that the road to this goal is not necessarily as simple as they thought.
Ask Tesla about it.
After unveiling the Model 3, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk entered the toughest few years of Tesla’s short life.
However, Tesla overcame all odds by delivering four electric models in just eight years: the Model S in 2012, the Model X in 2015, the Model 3 in 2017, and the Model Y in 2020.
Ideally, Tesla would be the biggest advantage for all of these companies from a consultant standpoint. If Tesla’s goal really is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, it would have no issue helping car companies figure out where their shortcomings are. No technological advantages would need to be shared. Still, a roadmap of how Tesla navigated through the toughest portion of its existence by releasing popular, profitable, and effective EVs would undoubtedly help. Not to mention, these companies are much more financially stable than Tesla was while it was ramping up its production of vehicles. That would only help the cause as money really isn’t an issue.
Another negative comes from a perceptive standpoint, but it can’t be a good look for the Biden administration to go through with this event without having the industry leader there. It would be like having a tech event without Apple, an Olympic highlight reel without Phelps, a chef’s get-together without Gordon Ramsay. It just doesn’t make sense, and on top of it, it doesn’t necessarily show that the country’s leaders support Tesla’s efforts. After all, Joe Biden hasn’t uttered the word “Tesla” since he’s taken office.
The Pros: Why it might not be so bad after all
If the purpose of this event is to get automakers on board with electrification, then Tesla really would have no business being there. After all, the companies invited have pledged to have half of their vehicle deliveries be electric in 2030. Tesla already delivers only electric vehicles, and it has since day 1. Some could see it as the Straight A student going to tutoring; it’s really kind of pointless.
Additionally, it might be a good look for Tesla not to go to the event from a political standpoint. Currently, 52% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance. This is according to Rasmussen, which updates the poll daily.
Tesla also does not need any assistance federally, and it does not need any entity to tell it how to handle its business. This is something that Tesla should take pride in. The hard-working giants who have ruled the automotive industry for a century need guidance on continuing to move forward.
For Tesla, the answers came through its own hard work and its own want to change the world for the better.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below, or be sure to email me at joey@teslarati.com or on Twitter @KlenderJoey.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
