News
Tesla on the winning end of proposed U.S. import tax
U.S. automobile sales might slow as a result of the proposed import tax affecting vehicles with manufacturers outside of the country. However, this change could stimulate up to 1 million additional vehicles could be manufactured in the U.S., which would add 50,000 more jobs at car production and part assembly plants.
That good news/ bad news scenario is according to researchers at Baum & Associates, LLC, which advises suppliers. Their report is intended to provide estimates to show the relative impact of the tax plan on each automaker. Dan Luria, an economist at the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center in Ann Arbor, is the lead author of the Baum & Associates report, which accounts for imports of both finished vehicles and parts for domestic cars that are made overseas.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Tesla is the single automaker that would be able to maintain consistent pricing before and after such a tax implementation, as it manufactures all its cars in the U.S. and incorporates predominately U.S. made parts.
Border tax consequences for automakers
According to Baum & Associates, LLC, most automakers would need to raise vehicle prices by thousands of dollars. They would also likely have to assume a portion of the higher tax burden.
- Ford, with significant domestic manufacturing, would accrue the smallest price hike among major automakers, at about $282 per vehicle;
- General Motors Co. would experience a $995 increase per vehicle;
- Volvo and VW vehicle prices would have to rise by about $7,600 and $6,800, on average;
- Jaguar’s Land Rover, which is 100% imported, would require an increase of more than $17,000 per vehicle.
According to Alan Baum, the founder of the West Bloomfield, Michigan-based firm which produced the report, “The plan results in a net cost for automakers. Each company will then make its own decisions on pricing in order to best compete and maximize its profits.”
In what direction might a proposed border tax shift automakers’ current business practices? Essentially, the tax would create an incentive for automakers to keep U.S. plants running at the expense of those in Canada and Mexico. It could also steer auto companies currently conducting business in the U.S. to other markets.
- Automakers may boost U.S. parts procurement and production from existing vehicle assembly plants;
- Overseas automakers including Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Subaru, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mazda Motor Corp., Hyundai Motor Co., and Kia Motors Corp. may consider expanding existing U.S. operations or building new capacity;
- Volkswagen AG could build another U.S. assembly plant;
- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV may accelerate the conversion of factories in Michigan to build pickups there instead of Mexico;
- Nissan Motor Co. might export more from Mexico to Latin American markets and less to the U.S.;
- Mazda and Mitsubishi, which rely entirely on imports to the U.S. market, may have to quit the U.S. market or pay other manufacturers to assemble their cars.
Meanwhile, Toyota Motor Corp. is one of the corporations that is warning that the proposed border tax will result in many costlier products, not only in automobiles, but also in food, clothing, and gasoline, among other areas.
Other analysts weigh in on the effects of a proposed border tax
It’s not just Baum and associates who are advising clients on their prospective bottom lines should a border tax become legislated by U.S. officials. Other analysts are weighing in on the proposed border tax effects on commerce. Colin Langan, an analyst at UBS Securities LLC, argues that the proposed border tax could raise average prices in the U.S. by about 8 percent, or $2,500 per vehicle.
The border tax has the potential to reduce annual sales by about 2 million vehicles, Langan said.
He also projects that, while the tax has the potential to move through the House of Representatives, it is “very unlikely” to pass in the Senate. Langan predicts the chances of the border tax being enacted at less than 50 percent.
The proposal to begin levying companies’ imports and domestic sales and make exports tax-exempt would completely overhaul the U.S. tax code.
Tesla has officially opened Robotaxi access to everyone and everyone, but there is one catch: you have to have an iPhone.
Tesla’s Robotaxi service in Austin and its ride-hailing service in the Bay Area were both officially launched to the public today, giving anyone using the iOS platform the ability to simply download the app and utilize it for a ride in either of those locations.
It has been in operation for several months: it launched in Austin in late June and in the Bay Area about a month later. In Austin, there is nobody in the driver’s seat unless the route takes you on the freeway.
In the Bay Area, there is someone in the driver’s seat at all times.
The platform was initially launched to those who were specifically invited to Austin to try it out.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
Slowly, Tesla launched the platform to more people, hoping to expand the number of rides and get more valuable data on its performance in both regions to help local regulatory agencies relax some of the constraints that were placed on it.
Additionally, Tesla had its own in-house restrictions, like the presence of Safety Monitors in the vehicles. However, CEO Elon Musk has maintained that these monitors were present for safety reasons specifically, but revealed the plan was to remove them by the end of the year.
Now, Tesla is opening up Robotaxi to anyone who wants to try it, as many people reported today that they were able to access the app and immediately fetch a ride if they were in the area.
We also confirmed it ourselves, as it was shown that we could grab a ride in the Bay Area if we wanted to:
🚨 Tesla Robotaxi ride-hailing Service in Austin and the Bay Area has opened up for anyone on iOS
Go download the app and, if you’re in the area, hail a ride from Robotaxi pic.twitter.com/1CgzG0xk1J
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 18, 2025
The launch of a more public Robotaxi network that allows anyone to access it seems to be a serious move of confidence by Tesla, as it is no longer confining the service to influencers who are handpicked by the company.
In the coming weeks, we expect Tesla to then rid these vehicles of the Safety Monitors as Musk predicted. If it can come through on that by the end of the year, the six-month period where Tesla went from launching Robotaxi to enabling driverless rides is incredibly impressive.
News
Tesla analyst sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing: here’s why
“You’ll see increased adoption as people are exposed to it. I’ve been behind the wheel of several of these and the different iterations of FSD, and it is getting better and better. It’s something when people experience it, they will be much more comfortable utilizing FSD and paying for it.”
Tesla analyst Stephen Gengaro of Stifel sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing, and he believes more and more people will commit to paying for the full suite or the subscription service after they try it.
Full Self-Driving is Tesla’s Level 2 advanced driver assistance suite (ADAS), and is one of the most robust on the market. Over time, the suite gets better as the company accumulates data from every mile driven by its fleet of vehicles, which has swelled to over five million cars sold.
The suite features a variety of advanced driving techniques that many others cannot do. It is not your typical Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Lane Keeping ADAS system. Instead, it can handle nearly every possible driving scenario out there.
It still requires the driver to pay attention and ultimately assume responsibility for the vehicle, but their hands are not required to be on the steering wheel.
It is overwhelmingly impressive, and as a personal user of the FSD suite on a daily basis, I have my complaints, but overall, there are very few things it does incorrectly.
Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review
Gengaro, who increased his Tesla price target to $508 yesterday, said in an interview with CNBC that adoption rates of FSD will increase over the coming years as more people try it for themselves.
At first, it is tough to feel comfortable with your car literally driving you around. Then, it becomes second nature.
Gengaro said:
“You’ll see increased adoption as people are exposed to it. I’ve been behind the wheel of several of these and the different iterations of FSD, and it is getting better and better. It’s something when people experience it, they will be much more comfortable utilizing FSD and paying for it.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving take rates also have to increase as part of CEO Elon Musk’s recently approved compensation package, as one tranche requires ten million active subscriptions in order to win that portion of the package.
The company also said in the Q3 2025 Earnings Call in October that only 12 percent of the current ownership fleet are paid customers of Full Self-Driving, something the company wants to increase considerably moving forward.
News
Tesla scores major court win as judge rejects race bias class action
The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers.
Tesla scored a significant legal victory in California after a state judge reversed a class certification in a high-profile race harassment case involving 6,000 Black workers at its Fremont plant. The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers ahead of a 2026 trial, a threshold the judge viewed as necessary to reliably represent the full group.
No class action
In a late-Friday order, California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon concluded that the suit could not remain a class action, stating he could not confidently apply the experiences of a much smaller group of testifying workers to thousands of potential class members. His ruling reverses a 2024 decision by a different judge who had certified the case under the belief that a trial of that size would be manageable, as noted in a Reuters report.
The lawsuit was originally filed by former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, who alleged that Black employees at Tesla’s Fremont factory were exposed to various forms of racially hostile conduct, including slurs, graffiti, and instances of disturbing objects appearing in work areas. Tesla has previously said it does not tolerate harassment and has removed employees found responsible for misconduct. Neither Tesla nor the plaintiffs’ legal team immediately commented on the latest ruling.
Tesla’s legal challenges
While the decertification narrows the scope of this particular case, Tesla still faces additional litigation over similar allegations. A separate trial involving related claims brought by a California state civil rights agency is scheduled just two months after the now-vacated class trial date. The company is also contending with federal race discrimination claims filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alongside several individual lawsuits it has already resolved.
For now, the reversal removes the large-scale exposure Tesla would have faced in a unified class trial, shifting the dispute back to individual claims rather than a single mass action. The case is Vaughn v. Tesla, filed in Alameda County Superior Court.
Tesla opens Robotaxi access to everyone — but there’s one catch
Tesla analyst sees Full Self-Driving adoption rates skyrocketing: here’s why
