General Motors (GM) has shut down a manufacturing plant in Kansas and laid off the site’s roughly 2,000 workers after the automaker stated plans to do so last week. The news comes as the latest amidst strikes from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union targeting Ford, GM and Stellantis.
Following the UAW strikes at a GM assembly plant in Wentzville, Missouri last Friday, the automaker said on Wednesday that it doesn’t have work available for its Fairfax, Kansas workers, according to NBC News. GM has also said it won’t be able to offer unemployment benefits to the workers “due to the specific circumstances of this situation.”
“The fundamental reality is that the UAW’s demands can be described in one word — untenable,” wrote GM President Mark Reuss in an op-ed for Detroit Free Press on Wednesday. “As the past has clearly shown, nobody wins in a strike. We have delivered a record offer. That is a fact.”
Roughly 12,700 workers from GM, Ford and Stellantis walked off the job after previous union contracts expired last Thursday. The UAW strikes have targeted key manufacturing plants, asking workers to leave the premises without any notice to affect the automakers’ larger supply chains.
Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge owner Stellantis announced plans to lay off 68 workers at an Ohio facility, warning of another 300 layoffs in Indiana if the situation does not improve.
Additional layoffs are happening at a Stellantis machining plant in Perrysburg, Ohio, outside of Toledo, due to “storage constraints.” The company predicts a similar situation at a transmission and casting plant in Kokomo, Indiana.
Ford also laid off around 600 employees at a plant in Wayne, Michigan.
Tesla’s Elon Musk invites UAW to hold a union vote “at their convenience”
UAW President Shawn Fain has warned that the union will broaden strikes on Friday if the automakers don’t make “serious progress” on creating a new contract. Roughly 150,000 workers total are represented by the UAW.
Currently, the UAW is asking for pay increases of between 36 and 40 percent over a four-year period, a 32-hour work week, significant changes to the time it takes to earn top wages and more. The automakers have offered contracts featuring roughly 20 percent wage hikes over four years.
Strikes have so far hit GM’s full-size van and midsize truck plant in Wentzville, a Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger midsize truck plant in Wayne, Michigan, and a Stellantis plant in Toledo, Ohio, which produces the Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator.
According to Reuters, the three automakers remained in a negotiation stand-off with the UAW on Wednesday, ahead of the union’s plans to escalate strikes to other facilities. Analysts think that the next wave of strikes could target production facilities building more profitable pickups, such as the Chevy Silverado from GM and the Dodge Ram from Stellantis.
Ford reached a deal to prevent a mass walkout of Canadian workers on Tuesday after the union Unifor threatened a strike of its roughly 5,600 workers across three plants in the country.
The agreement has still yet to be ratified by Unifor, and Ford Canada said it wouldn’t disclose details about the deal. However, it reportedly included improved wages and pensions along with added support for transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs).
While EV manufacturer Tesla isn’t unionized and is not directly involved with the strikes, transitioning to EVs has been a main concern for the unions, as EV production requires fewer employees. As such, the UAW seeks to increase workers’ stability amidst the EV transition.
Tesla only builds EVs, so unlike the “Big 3,” the automaker won’t have to phase out gas car production. Some predict that the strikes could benefit the EV maker, while others argue that ripple effects from the strikes could turn out to be a negative across the auto industry.
You can watch UAW President Shawn Fain’s update below, posted on Tuesday, in which he warns of the upcoming Friday deadline.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
