In the capital city, Elon Musk has persistently criticized the federal government, asserting that numerous investigations and safety regulations hamper the progress of Tesla, his electric vehicle initiative, particularly in the pursuit of developing fleets of robotaxis and fully autonomous vehicles.
Musk’s advantageous rapport with former President Donald Trump may lead to an alleviation of these federal challenges within a short span of time.
Among the federal investigations that might be discontinued are those concerning crash incidents involving Tesla’s semi-automated cars, a criminal inquiry by the Justice Department assessing whether Musk and Tesla exaggerated the self-driving capabilities of their vehicles, and a mandate requiring crash data reporting for vehicles equipped with systems similar to Tesla’s Autopilot.
Safety advocates express serious concerns regarding the potential ramifications of these actions, highlighting that federal investigations and recalls have historically played a role in preserving lives.
“It’s like Musk is desiring to take the reins of the Department of Transportation,” remarked Missy Cummings, a former senior safety advisor at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “I can no longer keep track of the number of investigations ongoing with Tesla. They’re all likely to disappear.”
When Trump assumed office, an aggressive initiative against the federal government was launched by the White House and Musk—halting budgets and programs while dismissing various career officials, including prosecutors and oversight personnel usually protected from such swift terminations.
This has incited backlash from legal experts who argue that such actions from the Trump administration set a troubling precedent, potentially destabilizing the established balance of power in the capital.
Although the Trump administration has not yet specified any decisions that could favor Tesla or Musk’s various ventures, a shutdown of federal inquiries or safety regulations might be less complex than the ongoing push against regulators and government structures.
Leadership changes within agencies can lead to abrupt halts in investigations into corporations like Tesla. Moreover, safety initiatives established through executive orders may also be rapidly dismantled by new appointees without legal ramifications.
This precarious nature of federal investigations and safety protocols makes them viable targets for individuals aiming to weaken government oversight and disrupt enduring standards.
“Trump’s win, combined with his alliance with Musk, is likely to result in a diminished regulatory framework that has hindered Tesla,” commented Daniel Ives, a seasoned Wall Street analyst focusing on technology and automotive sectors.

The federal oversight concerning Tesla stands out as one of the most significant in Musk’s portfolio of businesses. However, the potential leniency the Trump administration could provide for Tesla may extend to other entities within Musk’s diverse array of ventures.
Musk’s various enterprises, including SpaceX, his aerospace firm, and social media platform X, are currently under federal scrutiny.
The financial relationship between Musk’s businesses and the government includes substantial federal contracts. SpaceX alone has received close to $20 billion since 2008 for launching astronauts and satellites, while Tesla has garnered $41.9 million in government payments for vehicles supplied to several embassies.
Musk, now a powerful figure due to his considerable backing of Trump’s presidential campaign, emerged as the largest contributor, investing over $270 million into Trump’s political strategy during the fierce presidential bid’s concluding months.
His donations and advocacy throughout the campaign, which included turning his social media platform X into a conduit for pro-Trump commentary, have yielded an influential role; he has been assigned to lead efforts aimed at reducing governmental regulations and expenses.
Musk’s position at the head of the Department of Government Efficiency allows him a pivotal role in his confrontation against federal operations, though his authority in this area is currently under judicial scrutiny.
Prior to Trump’s inauguration, the public began to take notice of Musk’s substantial sway with the incoming administration, which was reflected positively in Tesla’s performance.
By December, Tesla’s stock experienced a remarkable increase of over 60%, although it has since fluctuated, retaining a value that is still 40% higher than before Trump’s election.
“For Musk,” Ives remarked, “placing your bets on Trump is a high-stakes gamble.”

The White House has not commented on how investigations or regulatory oversight involving Tesla or Musk’s other companies might be influenced. A representative for the transition team stated last month that compliance with legal standards and conflict of interest guidelines would be integral for DOGE and its associates.
In the lead-up to Trump’s start on January 20, the president-elect’s transition group suggested modifications that could be favorable to Musk and his automotive endeavor, such as scrapping the requirement for car manufacturers to report crash details related to self-driving technologies.
This proposal could significantly benefit Tesla, which is responsible for reporting most incidents that led to various investigations and recalls.
Additionally, the transition group recommended abolishing a $7,500 tax credit aimed at electric vehicle buyers—a change Musk has vocally supported.
“Removing those incentives will only reinforce Tesla’s position,” Musk stated on X while campaigning and fundraising for Trump back in July.
Industry analysts suggest that while this shift may minimally impact Tesla, it could severely affect rival electric vehicle manufacturers still trying to establish their market presence.
Musk did not provide comments regarding these developments. Previously, he posted on X asserting that he had not solicited Trump for any special considerations, nor had Trump offered any.

Although the majority of changes Musk envisions for Tesla might be swiftly enacted, one enduring objective may influence the autonomous vehicle sector for an extended period.
While nearly 30 states have specific regulations for self-driving cars, the creation of a federal framework has yet to materialize.
During a call with Tesla investors in late October, as Musk allocated considerable funds into Trump’s campaign, he expressed a desire for the federal government to establish clear guidelines.
“There should be a governmental approval protocol for autonomous vehicles,” Musk commented. “If there’s an efficiency department in place, I’ll work to facilitate that.”
Interestingly, Musk oversees that exact department.

Individuals affected by crashes involving Tesla vehicles express apprehension that a reduction in federal investigation and recall authority could lead to a rise in dangerous and fatal incidents.
They emphasize their concerns that without proper oversight, Tesla may evade accountability for its shortcomings, exemplified by a case where a 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, lost her life.
On a quiet rural Florida road, she and her date were struck by a Tesla operating on Autopilot—a feature designed for driverless engagement—while they gazed at the stars. Eyewitness and police accounts revealed that the vehicle disregarded multiple traffic signs before the collision.
Naibel died instantly, while her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, suffered injuries yet survived. A federal assessment later revealed that Tesla’s Autopilot needed significant adjustments.
“Our family’s life has been irrevocably altered,” Neima, Naibel’s sister, shared. “As an engineer, I believe every product must adhere to crucial safety regulations. This technology is not exempt.”
“It must be scrutinized when it fails because it evidently does fail,” she underscored.
Tesla’s legal representatives did not respond to inquiries. In a statement posted on X in December 2023, Tesla referenced an existing lawsuit the Benavides family initiated against the driver involved, who testified to actively maintaining control of the car despite using Autopilot.
According to Tesla, the driver “was pushing the accelerator to sustain a speed of 60 mph,” effectively overriding Autopilot’s intended speed limit of 45 mph for the route, a claim Benavides Leon’s attorney disputes.

The main authority exerting influence over Tesla is the NHTSA, part of the Department of Transportation. NHTSA sets safety standards that must be achieved for vehicles to enter the market while also having a law enforcement component that allows for crash investigations and safety defect recalls.
Presently, there are six ongoing investigations into Tesla’s autonomous technology, prompted by various incidents when the systems were in operation.
Numerous other federal entities are also scrutinizing Musk and Tesla; however, all ongoing inquiries could potentially be halted if officials favorable to Musk assume control:
— The Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department are reviewing whether Musk and Tesla exaggerated the autonomous nature of their vehicles, potentially resulting in dangerous situations from overreliance.
— The Justice Department is also investigating allegations that Tesla misled consumers about the range of travel before charging is required.
— The National Labor Relations Board is deliberating over 12 claims of unfair labor practices raised by employees at Tesla facilities.
— The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is requesting a federal judge to compel Tesla to adopt reforms and deliver damages and compensation to Black workers who reported racial harassment in the workplace, alleging systemic racist abuse at Tesla’s Fremont factory.
Experts anticipate that most, if not all, of these investigations could come to a standstill, especially at the Justice Department where Trump has previously shown a pattern of interfering with operational matters.
“DOJ is not going to pursue charges against Elon Musk,” stated Peter Zeidenberg, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. “I expect any existing investigations to be abruptly halted.”
Moreover, Trump has taken measures to exert control over NLRB and EEOC, including the recent ousting of Democratic board members, deviating from long-standing norms, which has led to legal action from one board member and other potential litigation from others.
Tesla and Musk have refuted all allegations of misconduct throughout these inquiries and are actively contesting them.

The smaller safety agency that seems to have been most effective in influencing Tesla’s conduct is NHTSA, an organization with about 750 employees that has compelled Tesla to provide crash data and partake in various recalls and investigations.
“NHTSA has been a significant challenge for Musk over the past decade, leading to a saga involving several federal agencies,” noted Ives.
Musk has continually attributed the delays in Tesla’s advancements to government regulations and negative exposure stemming from numerous recalls following incidents involving its self-driving technology.
“The term ‘recall’ should itself be redefined,” Musk tweeted back in 2014. Two years prior, he claimed that referring to over-the-air software updates as ‘recalls’ was outdated and incorrect.
Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, indicated that while some investigations might persist under Trump, the likelihood of recalls decreases if defects are discovered.
Thus far, Tesla’s recalls have generally been voluntary measures, prompted by the potential of public hearings challenging defects leading to NHTSA-ordered recalls.
This threat could be swiftly removed under the new NHTSA head appointed by Trump.
“If there’s no recall threat, will Tesla take such actions?” Brooks queried. “Regrettably, this is where politics intrudes.”

Among the active NHTSA inquiries, several examine fundamental features of Tesla’s automated driving systems during incidents of numerous collisions.
The examination of Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” feature commenced in October after the company reported four crashes where the cars struggled to navigate certain visibility conditions. In one notable case, a woman was killed on a freeway while aiding another crash victim.
Following NHTSA pressure, Tesla has subsequently recalled the “Full Self-Driving” function for necessary software enhancements on two occasions. This technology, touted as the most advanced within Tesla’s suite, is designed for minimal human driving intervention. However, reoccurring malfunctions ignited a new NHTSA inquiry following a crash in July that resulted in a motorcyclist’s death.
In January, NHTSA initiated yet another investigation into the “Actually Smart Summon” technology that remotely maneuvers a car. Reports indicated four incidents during which cars using this function collided, leading to criticism of Tesla for neglecting to report these accidents.
NHTSA is also examining whether a recall related to Autopilot issued in 2023 was effectively implemented; this recall aimed to enhance driver engagement through improved alerts and controls following previous investigations revealing numerous crashes linked with Autopilot, causing several injuries and fatalities.
In an April correspondence to Tesla, NHTSA officials noted that crashes involving the Autopilot system persisted, failing to observe significant shifts in driver alerts following the new software implementation.
Critics assert that Tesla’s reliance on solely camera technology for self-driving does not offer adequate safety measures compared to other manufacturers utilizing both radar and laser sensors alongside cameras to enhance visibility.
Musk, however, has contended that human drivers function efficiently with just their eyesight, asserting that autonomous vehicles should likewise be capable with similar simplicity. He has labeled radar-dependent technology as an endeavor doomed to failure.
Bryant Walker Smith, a scholar from Stanford Law School specializing in automated driving, pointed to a fallacy in Musk’s narrative of government obstruction. According to Smith, the real issue lies in Tesla’s failure to deliver on its self-driving promises.
“Accusing the federal government of hindering progress offers a convenient yet questionable excuse for the absence of a genuinely functional automated driving system,” Smith commented.
Experts in autonomous vehicles indicate that Musk’s pressure to justify frequent delays in the launch of autonomous technologies is primarily driven by his financial interests. Acknowledging the immense stakes, Musk previously declared that achieving a fully autonomous vehicle would crucially determine Tesla’s market value.
The technology failures associated with Tesla’s vehicles have not only resulted in tragic fatalities but also grievous injuries, dramatically altering the lives of individuals involved.
Attorneys advocating for victims harmed by Tesla’s malfunctioning technology or for families of the deceased emphasize that, without federal investigation capabilities, holding Tesla accountable may solely fall to civil litigation.
“When government intervention is inadequate, the civil sector is compelled to fill that void,” articulated Brett Schreiber, whose firm manages multiple Tesla cases.
Schreiber and other lawyers express concern that if federal investigative authorities are diminished, opportunities for accountability in courts might also diminish.
In the pending wrongful death case filed by Neima Benavides Leon against Tesla after her sister’s fatal accident, her attorney previously informed a Miami district judge that the lawsuit likely would have been abandoned without NHTSA’s crucial investigations that uncovered defects in the Autopilot technology.
“At the outset, we hoped that the NHTSA inquiry would yield fruitful results, which indeed it did, identifying product defects and prompting a recall,” attorney Doug Eaton conveyed during a March court session. “We had indicated early in the proceedings that if NHTSA had found nothing, we may well drop the case. Thankfully, they did identify issues.”