U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley (R-CA) has sent a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker over his recent claims about SpaceX. During Tuesday’s Transportation Committee hearing, Whitaker advanced several alleged safety concerns about SpaceX’s operations, all of which were strongly denied by the private space company.
During his testimony, the FAA Administrator alleged that SpaceX must operate at the highest level of safety, which includes having a safety management system program and a whistleblower program. He also alleged that SpaceX had launched without a permit last year in Cape Canaveral, FL and that the delay in Starship’s Flight 5 launch was due to SpaceX failing to provide an updated sonic boom analysis, among other safety concerns.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made several incorrect statements today regarding SpaceX. In fact, every statement he made was incorrect.
It is deeply concerning that the Administrator does not appear to have accurate information immediately available to him with respect to SpaceX… pic.twitter.com/OrtMUvnCNI— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 24, 2024
SpaceX strongly denied each of Whitaker’s claims. In a letter, Mat Dunn, senior director of global government affairs at SpaceX, stated that “every statement (the FAA Administrator) made was incorrect.” Dunn also argued that SpaceX is currently the “safest, most reliable launch provider in the world, and is absolutely committed to safety in all operations.”
Kiley’s recent letter to Whitaker carried some of the points from SpaceX’s rebuttal of the FAA Administrator’s claims. As per the Representative, Whitaker must provide answers to a number of questions surrounding his claims during the Transportation Committee hearing.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made a number of false statements in his testimony about @SpaceX. Either he doesn’t know what’s going on at his agency or he deliberately deceived Congress.
I’ve asked him which it is. Either possibility calls into doubt his fitness to lead the FAA. pic.twitter.com/lW2KcOnItT— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) September 25, 2024
Following is U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley’s letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker.
September 25, 2024
Michael Whitaker
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Whitaker,
On September 24, 2024, you testified at a hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I asked you several questions during that hearing regarding the FAA’s decisions with respect to SpaceX launches. Your answers appear to be filled with inaccurate statements. Such falsehoods raise serious concerns about your fitness to lead the FAA. Please provide my office with responses in writing to the following questions –
- You claimed that SpaceX launched recent Falcon missions without a permit. SpaceX has said these claims are completely false, and that the FAA has not alleged previously that the company was not permitted or licensed to launch these missions. Can you share the evidence for your claim that SpaceX launched these missions without a permit?
- You claimed that SpaceX moved a fuel farm closer to the population without completing a risk analysis statement. SpaceX says that the new location was twice the distance from the nearest publicly accessible area, that the company provided the FAA with all the required analysis, and that the FAA ultimately approved the revised location. Please supply all correspondence between the FAA and SpaceX relative to the fuel farm.
- You claimed that SpaceX failed to provide an updated sonic boom analysis. SpaceX refutes this and says that the Fish and Wildlife Service had already reviewed Starship’s sonic booms and determined they had no environmental impact. While SpaceX has acknowledged it recently provided the FAA data showing a slightly larger sonic boom area than originally anticipated, the company maintains this results in no new environmental impact.
- What evidence does the FAA have of a new environmental impact?
- How long will it take the FAA to make this minor paperwork update?
- What evidence does the FAA have for your assertion that this is a safety related incident”?
- You claimed that SpaceX was in violation of Texas state law. What Texas laws did SpaceX violate?
- Does the FAA need to be reformed to keep up with innovation in the commercial space industry?
From the dawn of the space age, America has set the standard in exploration. Our nation’s spirit of innovation has propelled us to the moon and pushed the boundaries of what’s possible. If we want to keep that legacy alive, we must work with innovators, rather than slow them down. We cannot hinder private industry that is pushing the limits, with regulatory red tape and constant delays. The longer we stall, the more ground we lose. We must continue to empower our private space companies to innovate, build, and lead. This is the only way that we can ensure our national security, while also guaranteeing that America defines the next generation of space exploration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kiley
Member of Congress
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
