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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
