Tesla Robotaxis Under Fire as Federal Investigation Uncovers Safety Fears
As Tesla prepared to make a major leap with its paid autonomous ride service, a federal warning landed with force. On May 12, 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sent Tesla an official demand for comprehensive disclosures about the upcoming Tesla Robotaxis set to launch in Austin, Texas.
Tesla Robotaxis now face intense regulatory scrutiny
What was meant to mark a transformative chapter for Tesla turned into a moment of reckoning. A detailed letter spanning more than 15 pages from the NHTSA raised a host of safety concerns, dampening the excitement around Tesla Robotaxis and igniting uncertainty among investors. The central issue: Is Tesla ready to place fully driverless vehicles on public roads?
The agency's request was anything but light. It imposed a June 19 deadline for Tesla to respond and warned of daily fines reaching $27,874 per violation. Among the 58 questions, regulators demanded specifics about the autonomous fleet's size, the types of cameras and sensors used, remote operation systems, and backup protocols for poor weather—conditions that have already proven problematic for Tesla's Full Self-Driving Supervised (FSD Supervised) technology.
NHTSA also asked how the current FSD Supervised system—still requiring driver oversight—relates to the upcoming Tesla Robotaxis, which promise full autonomy without human input. The agency wants details on safety architecture, computing hardware, and compliance with global safety standards like ISO 26262 and UL 4600. Essentially, regulators are demanding a full roadmap before Tesla's driverless cars hit the streets through a customer-facing app.
This level of scrutiny isn't sudden. It builds on an investigation (PE24031) launched in October 2024 into 2.4 million Tesla vehicles after several crashes in low-visibility conditions, including a fatal pedestrian accident in Arizona in 2023. Tesla was later compelled to recall over two million vehicles in December 2023 to add software controls aimed at reducing Autopilot misuse. However, NHTSA is still evaluating whether those updates go far enough.
The current probe deepens that inquiry—now zeroing in on whether Tesla Robotaxis are being promoted with capabilities that exceed what the system can safely deliver.
Yet despite the growing regulatory wall, Elon Musk has remained defiant. On April 23, he announced the successful conclusion of an internal ride-hailing test for Tesla employees in Austin and San Francisco, reporting over 1,500 trips. Musk continues to tout his vision of a global fleet of Tesla Robotaxis, capable of turning every car into a money-making asset. But now, that vision is under threat.
Analysts warn that the consequences could be severe. Beyond fines, Tesla could face a full-blown engineering investigation or even another recall—both of which would disrupt the company's projected $50 billion in annual revenue from Tesla Robotaxis by 2030. All of this adds pressure to an already difficult year, with slow sales and repeated delays to Tesla's long-awaited affordable EV. That entry-level model, seen as a vital piece of Tesla's growth strategy, has once again been paused—leaving more room for competitors like China's BYD to seize market share.
Now the countdown begins. Tesla has just five weeks to persuade regulators that Tesla Robotaxis are safe enough to handle complex real-world conditions without human drivers. Failing that, Tesla could be forced to delay—or even reconsider—its entire autonomous ride-hailing strategy.
While some view the federal pushback as a setback for innovation, others see it as an essential pause—one that ensures autonomous vehicles don't outpace safety standards. Whether Elon Musk manages to turn the challenge into triumph or hits the brakes on the Tesla Robotaxis rollout remains uncertain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
26 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump Says Fresh US-China Trade Talks in London Next Week
US President Donald Trump announced Friday a new round of trade talks with China in London next week, a day after calling Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in a bid to end a bitter battle over tariffs. The talks in the British capital on Monday will mark the second round of such negotiations between the world's two biggest economies since Trump launched his trade war this year. "The meeting should go very well," said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform. The president added that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese team. The first talks between Washington and Beijing since Trump slapped levies on allies and adversaries alike took place in Geneva last month. While Trump had imposed a sweeping 10 percent duty on imports from most trading partners, rates on Chinese goods rocketed as both countries engaged in an escalating tariffs battle. In April, additional US tariffs on many Chinese products hit 145 percent while China hit back with countermeasures of 125 percent. Following the talks last month, both sides agreed to temporarily bring down the levels, with US tariffs cooling to 30 percent and China's levies at 10 percent. But this temporary halt is expected to expire in early August and Trump last week accused China of violating the pact, underscoring deeper differences on both sides. US officials have accused China of slow-walking export approvals of critical minerals and rare earth magnets, a key issue behind Trump's recent remarks. While Trump's long-awaited phone call with Xi this week likely paved the way for further high-level trade talks, a swift resolution to the tariffs impasse remains uncertain.
Arab News
42 minutes ago
- Arab News
Federal judge approves $2.8 billion settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
NEW YORK: A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, US Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. 'Approving the agreement reached by the NCAA, the defendant conferences and student-athletes in the settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Roster limits held things up The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote. Her decision, however, took nearly a month to write, leaving the schools and conferences in limbo — unsure if the plans they'd been making for months, really years, would go into play. 'It remains to be seen how this will impact the future of inter-collegiate athletics — but as we continue to evolve, Carolina remains committed to providing outstanding experiences and broad-based programming to student-athletes,' North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said. Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a US team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump-Musk Showdown Threatens US Space Plans
SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon -- the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights -- before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS -- a symbol of post–Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. Space monopoly? The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly $5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes $4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly $6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported $1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access -- as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. "Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal," space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays -- and a failed crewed test last year -- have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit -- but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. "There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 -- it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume," she said. NASA meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. "NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues," the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating NASA's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. Private power, public risk But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. "It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap," Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. "Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business." Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman -- a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX -- as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because "some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target." The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. "This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky," he said. "I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds -- that it might not be worth the trust."
