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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
