WASHINGTON — Elon Musk has historically expressed frustration with the U.S. government, asserting that numerous federal investigations and safety protocols have hindered Tesla’s advancement in manufacturing electric vehicles and developing self-driving technology.

Now, due to Musk’s tight connection with President Trump, many of these federal challenges may be eliminated.

The Trump administration could swiftly terminate various federal inquiries and safety regulations, including investigations related to crashes involving Tesla’s semi-automated cars, and a U.S. Department of Justice probe looking into whether Musk and Tesla exaggerated the self-driving capabilities of their vehicles. Also, the government’s requirement for reporting crash statistics tied to technologies like Tesla’s Autopilot could be lifted.

Safety advocates caution that the implications of such measures could be severe.

“Basically, Musk is aiming to have control over the Department of Transportation,” remarked Missy Cummings, a former senior safety adviser at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “There have been numerous investigations revolving around Tesla. These could all evaporate.”

Experts are speculating about the possible outcomes of these developments:

Musk and Trump are determined to overhaul governmental structures.

The collaboration between Musk and the White House appears to be an all-out assault on the federal government, with a freeze on spending and key initiatives while dismissing numerous career staff members, including those in prosecution and regulatory oversight, who typically enjoy protection against abrupt firing.

This situation has provoked backlash from legal experts who argue that actions taken by the Trump administration have no precedent in contemporary history and are disrupting the power dynamics in Washington.

So far, the Trump administration has not disclosed any measures that would specifically assist Tesla or other firms led by Musk. However, reducing federal scrutiny or eliminating safety procedures would be simpler than their current confrontational approach towards regulatory bodies and governmental structures.

“Trump’s presidency, alongside the close relationship with Musk, is likely to result in the dilution of a regulatory framework that has burdened Tesla,” stated Daniel Ives, an experienced analyst on Wall Street focusing on technology and the automotive market.

The government has significant authority regarding Tesla.

The federal government possesses extensive powers over Tesla, which includes the authority to conduct investigations, enforce recalls, and mandate the reporting of crash data. However, the Trump administration could potentially relax its grip on Tesla and Musk’s diverse business ventures.

Several of Musk’s other enterprises, such as SpaceX in the aerospace sector and X in social media, are currently under federal examination.

Tesla itself is subjected to multiple probes from various federal entities, including the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board.

The agency wielding the most influence over Tesla and the automobile industry at large is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a component of the Department of Transportation. NHTSA establishes automotive safety benchmarks that vehicles must meet before being sold, and it has investigative authority to probe crashes and mandate recalls for safety issues.

Currently, there are six active investigations into Tesla’s autonomous technology, which were prompted by numerous incidents occurring while the automated systems were engaged.

“NHTSA has consistently challenged Musk over the past decade, and he has faced scrutiny from nearly every regulatory body in Washington,” noted Ives. “This ongoing situation has created a narrative that looks more like a dramatic saga heading into 2025.”

Victims and legal representatives are concerned about the potential reduction in oversight.

Individuals whose lives have been irrevocably altered due to Tesla-related accidents fear that a decrease in federal oversight could lead to an uptick in dangerous and fatal incidents.

They express anxiety that the company might escape accountability for its shortcomings, like the accident that resulted in the death of 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed when a Tesla barreled through a three-way intersection in rural Florida.

Benavides Leon died on-site, while her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, was injured yet survived. A federal inquiry concluded that the Autopilot feature in Tesla’s vehicles at the time was defective and required repairs.

“We have never been the same as a family,” Neima, Benavides’ sister, shared. “As an engineer, I know that everything we design must adhere to significant codes and regulations. This technology should not be any different.”

“It has to go under scrutiny when it fails,” she added emphatically. “Because it absolutely fails.”

Tesla’s legal counsel did not respond to inquiries for comment. In a statement posted on X in December 2023, Tesla referenced a prior lawsuit initiated by the Benavides family against the driver who collided with the college student. In that case, the driver claimed, despite using Autopilot, “I was very aware that it remained my responsibility to drive the car safely.”

Tesla also argued that because the driver “was applying the accelerator to maintain 60 mph,” this action effectively counteracted Autopilot, which would have otherwise limited the speed to 45 mph on that rural road—a claim disputed by Benavides’ lawyer.

In a pending wrongful death claim filed by Neima Benavides against Tesla after her sister’s fatal incident, her lawyer informed a Miami court that the lawsuit would likely have been retracted if NHTSA had not intervened to uncover faults with the Autopilot system.

“At every stage, we hoped that the NHTSA investigation would yield substantive findings, which it did—highlighting a product defect and prompting a recall,” attorney Doug Eaton remarked during a March hearing. “Had the NHTSA investigation not found those defects, we might have considered dropping the case. The investigation was crucial, and it did uncover significant issues.”