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 said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
