TheChek News Flow

DAX:

MDAX:

SDAX:

LONDON, April 10 (Reuters Breakingviews) - European governments know they need a viable alternative to SpaceX. But it will take more than state largesse to build a rival to Elon Musk’s satellite behemoth. The continent’s space sector also requires supportive policy, new technologies and far greater ambition.

Europe has been worrying about its dependence on U.S. satellite services for communications and intelligence for some time. The risks of this reliance became acutely apparent in February, when Reuters reported that U.S. officials had threatened to shut off Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s Starlink internet system, a vital resource in the country’s war with Russia. Musk later said the article was “false”. Even so, the episode underscored the urgent need for Europe to beef up its own satellite capabilities.

Now the European Commission wants to take matters into its own hands. A white paper published last month recommended that the bloc, opens new tab fund Ukraine’s access to space services from homegrown providers. Europe’s largest satellite operators also confirmed they’re in talks with government officials about providing backup connectivity to the war-torn country.

But if the continent is to develop a sovereign space industry independent of U.S. influence, it will need to go further and develop a company - or a coalition of firms - with all the capabilities of SpaceX.

The U.S. company is a juggernaut. In just six years, it has used its own rockets to launch some 8,000 satellites into orbit, where they beam broadband signals down to customers. Users range from households to airlines and armies. According to Bloomberg, SpaceX was valued at $350 billion, opens new tab at the end of last year.

SpaceX admirers ascribe its dizzying ascent to a combination of cost-saving design and vertical integration, meaning it manages a lot of its manufacturing in-house. External suppliers make some small parts for the company’s rockets and satellites, but design and final assembly is SpaceX’s responsibility. The group’s reusable rockets help it control launch costs. It has also benefitted from government contracts with a value of $22 billion, CEO Gwynne Shotwell said in February. The Pentagon awarded it deals worth a further $6 billion last week.

It won’t be easy for Europe to replicate SpaceX’s success. The bloc does not have a single company striving to design, build, launch and operate its own rockets and satellites. Rather, it has a patchwork of space firms with strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others.

Nor are Europe’s richest citizens putting their personal fortunes at risk. Musk kept SpaceX afloat prior to its first major NASA contracts, and long before it was attracting billions from private sector backers. Project Kuiper, Amazon.com’s (AMZN.O), opens new tab planned constellation of 3,000-plus satellites, has a deep-pocketed backer in Jeff Bezos, the e-commerce giant’s founder.

Europe doesn’t necessarily need many thousands of satellites to be self-sufficient in broadband beamed from space. It does, however, need to be capable of building, launching and operating its own constellation. When it comes to building satellites, the continent can draw on existing expertise. Aerospace giant Airbus (AIR.PA), opens new tab, France’s Thales (TCFP.PA), opens new tab and Leonardo (LDOF.MI),

opens new tab of Italy have started talks with EU antitrust authorities about a possible merger of their satellite divisions.

Getting those objects into space is trickier, however. Europe has just two operational rockets, both owned and operated by France’s Arianespace, which have only managed a handful of successful launches between them.

As well as communication satellites, Europe also needs to build up its satellite intelligence. When the Trump administration suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine last month, Kyiv lost access to crucial information collected from space. The country’s military relies on images from U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to survey damage and track the movements of Russian forces. While Europe has some spy satellites that could help, their capabilities are more limited.

The American advantage is partly about money. According to consultancy Novaspace, global space investments by governments reached around $135 billion last year, with the U.S. accounting for $80 billion. Of that, the country spent an estimated $45 billion on defence, with the remainder going to civil space programmes like NASA.

Europe’s spending is puny by comparison. Trade association Eurospace totted up 11.4 billion euros ($12.6 billion) in total space spending by the bloc last year, with just over 1 billion spent by national militaries. Besides, the funding of military space initiatives in the bloc is still largely decided at the national level, making cross-border efforts tricky to coordinate.

Those difficulties are evident in the commissioning process for IRIS2, a planned constellation of 290 communications satellites billed as Europe’s sovereign answer to Starlink. Announced in 2022, the project was beset by delays and funding disputes, with German officials raising concerns about costs and the uneven division of labour between member states. Contracts were ultimately signed last December and three satellite operators – SES, Eutelsat and Hispasat – are taking the project forward.

The total cost of IRIS2 amounts to 10.6 billion euros, with 6.5 billion euros coming from the public wallet via the European Commission, member states and the European Space Agency. The constellation’s trio of operators are due to put up the rest. Eutelsat, which has a market capitalisation of just 1.7 billion euros and net debt of 2.1 billion euros, is expected to invest 2 billion euros. But analysts question whether the company can afford to do so as it must also upgrade existing satellites and refinance debt, while grappling with declining revenue.

The project may also struggle to sign up civilian users, as Starlink has done. Eutelsat expects to generate 550 million euros in annual revenue over the 12 years of the IRIS2 contract. New Street Research reckons this implies a wholesale price of 23 euros per month for 1 megabit per second (Mbps) of dedicated bandwidth. By comparison, Starlink currently offers residential internet connections in France and Italy with typical bandwidth of 100 Mbps for around 40 euros a month.

Governments seeking a home-grown satellite communications service might be willing to pay up, but consumers and businesses may not. Eutelsat and its partners need commercial users because the European Union has not fully guaranteed their revenue. As it stands, the bloc has committed to buying capacity “worth several hundred of million euros” a year.

Europe now faces a choice: it can mobilise the capital, technology and political will necessary to build a sovereign space sector, or it can stand by as the U.S. and China made ever-larger strides. It may not be possible to match Starlink for size and speed, but it is possible to build secure space services that European governments want to use. Doing so will require feats of diplomacy and engineering - as well as plenty of financial fuel.

Price of Wimbledon tennis debenture seats jumps 59% to £73,000

Cost increase for guaranteed Number 1 Court spot comes as All England Lawn Tennis Club looks to fund building project

The All England Lawn Tennis Club has announced a 59 per cent price increase for debenture seats inside Number 1 Court during the Wimbledon Championships, as it looks to raise funds ahead of a major building project.

The debentures, which are tradeable assets regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, grant holders a guaranteed spot inside the venue’s second most prestigious court during the championships and access to premium hospitality venues between 2027 and 2031.

The window to buy will close in May, the AELTC said on Wednesday, with tickets priced at £73,000, up 59 per cent from £46,000 when they were last issued in 2021 and £31,000 in 2016.

A total of 1,250 seats will be put up for sale, generating proceeds of about £75mn for the AELTC, which runs the oldest Grand Slam in tennis. Last year the club sold 2,520 Centre Court debentures at £116,000 each, raising £239mn.

Debentures, which were first introduced by the AELTC in 1920, often trade at a significant premium to the issue price. The latest Number 1 Court debentures traded at £36,000 as recently as last month, despite providing a seat only for the next two editions of the tournament.

However, the newest Centre Court debentures, which offer access beginning from next year until 2030, have recently been changing hands at a slight discount of £109,000.

While 90 per cent of profits generated by the annual two-week event is used to fund the Lawn Tennis Association, the sport’s governing body in Great Britain, money from debenture sales is typically used to pay for investment in club facilities, such as adding a roof to the main show courts.

The latest sale comes ahead of a planned expansion that would more than double the size of the host venue in south-west London. The Wimbledon Park Project would add 39 grass courts, a new 8,000-seat show court, and a new park on land owned by the AELTC that was previously home to a private golf club.

The plans have proven contentious, with local residents and MPs complaining that the expanded site will take up too much space without offering enough in return for the local community.

However, the Mayor of London’s office last year granted formal approval for the project, which will take roughly eight years to be completed.

Wimbledon is the smallest of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Total attendance last year reached 526,455, less than half the 1.2mn people who went to the Australian Open in Melbourne in January.

Once complete, the expansion would allow the AELTC to increase daily capacity from 42,000 to 50,000, but crucially also move the week-long qualifying rounds on site. At present, they take place at a separate venue in Roehampton in south-west London.

In the meantime, Wimbledon has sought to increase revenue by offering more luxury experiences for high-rolling tennis fans. Last year it hosted a pop-up version of famed — and now closed — London restaurant Le Gavroche, with one-day tickets, including access to Centre Court, starting at £2,765 a head.

The decision comes as the petrochemical group has been reshaping its sports portfolio in recent months

Sailing team Ineos Britannia will not compete in the next edition of the America’s Cup yacht race, as billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe continues to overhaul his sports interests.

Ineos Britannia had previously set out its intention to compete in the 38th America’s Cup expected to be held in 2027, despite splitting from Sir Ben Ainslie, the champion sailor who had led the British bid to win the prestigious sailing competition.

However, Ineos said it had been forced to withdraw after negotiations with Ainslie’s Athena Racing dragged on.

Under Ratcliffe, the petrochemical group has expanded into sport including significant minority stakes in English football club Manchester United and Formula 1 racing team Mercedes.

However, the group has been reshaping its sports portfolio in recent months, and has set out plans to cut out hundreds of jobs at Man United to save money.

Last month, Ineos settled a dispute with New Zealand Rugby after the body behind the All Blacks and Black Ferns sued in response to the company’s attempt to renegotiate a sponsorship agreement. In cycling, Ineos Grenadiers have been looking for another sponsor.

Ineos Britannia said its decision to withdraw came following a “protracted negotiation” with Ainslie’s Athena Racing in the wake of last year’s America’s Cup in Barcelona.

Five-times Olympic medallist Ainslie was the face of the Ineos-backed sailing team, but relations with Ratcliffe broke down.

“The agreement that had been reached with Athena would have allowed both parties to compete in the next Cup, but it depended on a rapid resolution,” Ineos Britannia said.

“Ineos Britannia had agreed the substantive terms very quickly, but Athena failed to bring the agreement to a timely conclusion. Ineos Britannia is of the opinion that this six-month delay has undermined its ability to prepare for the next Cup and so has reluctantly withdrawn its challenge,” it added.

Ainslie was contacted for comment.

Ineos Britannia reached the final of last year’s America’s Cup but won only two races to New Zealand’s seven, ending British hopes of a win. Still, it was the first time a British team had made the final since 1964.

Ratcliffe said it had been a “difficult decision” to withdraw, as he defended the Ineos performance in two previous editions of the America’s Cup.

“We were the most successful British challenger in modern times with an exceptionally quick boat and we felt with the very effective input from the Mercedes F1 engineers that we had a real chance to win at the next Cup. Unfortunately, the opportunity has slipped away,” he added.

Oil price plunge puts US shale production in peril

Executives say trade war and Opec output surge create toughest challenge since the Covid-19 pandemic

US shale oil producers are facing their gravest threat in years, as a sudden crude price sell-off triggered by Donald Trump’s trade war has pushed parts of the sector to the brink of failure, executives have warned.

US oil prices have fallen 12 per cent since Trump’s “liberation day” tariff announcement last week, leaving them below the level many producers in Texas say they need to break even — and sparking fears the industry could be forced to idle rigs.

Opec’s recent decision to raise production has also raised alarm bells.

“This reminds me exactly of Covid,” said Kirk Edwards, president of Latigo Petroleum, an independent producer based in Odessa, Texas, referring to the 2020 price crash that brought a wave of bankruptcies across the shale sector.

Then too, oil markets were facing the twin threats of falling demand and new supplies from Opec producers such as Saudi Arabia, which last week announced a plan to increase supplies faster than expected in the coming months.

“We are facing a double whammy again,” said Edwards, adding that if prices did not recover in the next couple of months, there could be “devastating events” in the Permian Basin — the world’s most prolific oilfield and the engine room of the US industry.

Bill Smead, chief investment officer at Smead Capital Management, which owns shares in several shale producers, said the tariff war had created a “bloody mess” that risked scaring investors away from oil and gas businesses.

“Trump wants to get the oil price down to $50 and you will end up with half the number of companies in the industry if that happens,” he said. “It would result in M&A with the strong picking up the pieces of the weaker players.”

The oil sell-off in recent days has been dramatic — and comes alongside huge turmoil in global equity markets triggered by Trump’s decision to launch a global trade war.

The US president on Wednesday said he was puling back from the harshest levies he had planned, sending stock markets sharply higher. Oil prices also rose, with US marker West Texas Intermediate hitting $63 a barrel on Wednesday — but they remain well off the highs this year and deep in the danger zone for many producers.

Analysts said Trump’s decision to leave tariffs on China — the world’s biggest oil importer — would continue to loom over global crude demand prospects.

Bill Farren-Price at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies said: “There were quite a lot of pretty steady expectations for oil demand growth this year. I think they are all now in the bin.”

At less than $60 a barrel, many US oil producers will struggle to turn a profit, especially in some of the country’s ageing basins, forcing them to potentially stop drilling, lay down drilling rigs and let employees go. 

Rystad Energy said many US shale producers faced break-even costs of $62 a barrel of WTI when debt servicing and dividend payments were included.

The potential demand shock has been worsened by fears that Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s lowest-cost producers, could be poised to make a new move for market share by pumping more oil and allowing prices to drift lower, forcing rival producers out of business.

Opec’s decision to add 400,000 barrels of oil a day to global supplies had put pressure on crude prices even before Trump’s trade war.

The turmoil has also sparked a sell-off in the shares of shale producers, which face higher costs of production than conventional oil drilling. Occidental Petroleum and Devon Energy lost more than 12 per cent of their value in the five days since Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs”.

The crash is not on the same scale as 2020. Then, the US benchmark briefly traded below zero as the Covid-19 pandemic crushed global demand — sending the shale industry into a deep freeze and causing thousands of job losses as scores of companies filed for bankruptcy.

But the industry has staged a remarkable recovery since then, with Wall Street forcing producers to repair balance sheets and avoid costly drilling sprees. The new era of capital discipline has left producers in better shape to handle a new downturn, analysts say.

US oil production has recovered since the 2020 shock and hit a record of more than 13mn barrels a day in 2024.

But analysts who expected the country to reach even greater volumes this year are now walking back production forecasts, with the first decline in output since the pandemic now possible.

S&P Global Commodity Insights said this week that $50 oil could cause production to decline by more than 1mn b/d — a far cry from the Trump administration’s goal of fast output growth to drive down US petrol prices.

Many American oil executives backed Trump in last year’s election but are reeling from the price turn since he entered office. Some executives have grown critical of the White House’s energy strategy.

“This administration better have a plan @SecretaryWright,” Kaes Van’t Hof, president of Diamondback Energy, said in a social media post this week aimed at energy secretary Chris Wright. “The only industry that actually built itself in the US, manufactures in the US, grew jobs in the US and improved the trade deficit (and by proxy GDP) in the US over the past decade . . . smart move.”

Van’t Hof did not respond to a request for comment.

Adrian Carrasco, owner of Premier Energy Services, which is based in the Midland-Odessa region, said he was not panicking because a lot of shale producers hedge the price of oil that they sell for six to 12 months. But he said tariffs would raise costs for the industry.

“It’s a worry, because now their pricing has gone up an additional 25 per cent for buying drill pipe. When that’s going up and your price of oil being purchased is not going up, well, you have to adjust.”

Ørsted urges Europe to act to avert wind energy ‘downward spiral’

Renewables pioneer says Trump’s tariffs will have ‘meaningful impact’ on its US projects

Ørsted, the world’s largest offshore wind power developer, has called on Europe to do more to support an industry at risk of a “downward spiral”, just as Donald Trump’s new tariffs heap further pressure on its ailing US operation.

Rasmus Errboe, chief executive of the Denmark-based industry pioneer, said European offshore wind was in a “tough place” due to rising costs, supply chain strains and uncertainty over electricity prices. He also said Trump’s new tariffs would have a “meaningful impact” on the cost of its projects in the US, where Ørsted has faced significant difficulties. 

Errboe spoke to the Financial Times as Ørsted published a report calling for European capitals to commit to consistent annual support for the industry in order to meet offshore wind targets and help reverse rising costs.

“If you want to deliver on energy security, energy independence, affordability for Europe for the coming decades and meet the targets, then we need to make this change,” Errboe said. 

The report noted that while the cost of producing electricity from offshore wind in northern Europe dropped 70 per cent in the five years to 2020, it had since surged by 50 per cent.

“Rising costs and a higher . . . cost of capital due to increased revenue risk are making project economics unsustainable,” the report said. “Swift and decisive action is needed to avoid the risk that the industry enters a downward spiral.” 

Europe is banking on offshore wind to meet its ambitious net zero goals, given availability of coastline and limited space for onshore projects. However, the comments from Ørsted is a stark sign of the industry’s challenges.

Ørsted has endured a turbulent period after abandoning two US projects in 2023 due to rising costs and supply chain strains that triggered multibillion-dollar impairments. Its shares have more than halved over the past two years.

Errboe was promoted to chief executive this year as predecessor Mads Nipper was ousted, and the company has cut planned investment in the period to 2030 by a quarter. 

Errboe said its two large offshore wind projects currently being built in the US, Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind, would be hit by the new tariffs on aluminium and steel.

“It is in isolation [a] meaningful impact on our projects — no doubt about it,” he said, although he did not think it would jeopardise the projects.

He declined to rule out any further impairments in its US business, where it also develops onshore wind and solar power. The outlook for the renewables industry in the US has been clouded not only by tariffs but also Trump’s decision to halt some federal funding for the industry and the suspension of offshore wind development permits. 

The EU, by contrast, is seeking to increase its offshore wind capacity to 60 gigawatts by 2030 and 300GW by 2050, from the current level of 37GW, while the UK wants to more than treble its capacity to 50GW by the end of the decade. 

Ørsted wants European governments including the UK to commit to backing 10GW of offshore wind annually between 2031 and 2040 via contracts that guarantee developers a fixed price for electricity.

They say this would cut industry costs by almost a third over the next 15 years by removing the uncertainties that pushed up financing costs and hampered supply chains.

“Europe offshore wind has been a little bit of a test lab for different regulatory frameworks across European member states during the last four or five years,” Errboe said.  

This should be replaced by “a more co-ordinated approach across Europe which would create the needed predictability and level of certainty for the entire industry”.

EU weighs buying more US gas due to Trump tariff pressure

Bloc may push to buy more LNG from the US if it fits with green goals, European energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen says

The EU will court the US for more gas to assuage President Donald Trump while also slashing red tape to boost renewable power capacity this year, the bloc’s energy commissioner has said.

The European Commission expects record renewable capacity to be installed in the EU in 2025.

But Dan Jørgensen said the green push did not preclude potential commitments to buy more US liquefied natural gas, as part of a response to Trump’s tariffs.

The US president issued a 90-day pause and lowered most of the tariffs on Wednesday, shortly after they came into force.

Trump on Monday had suggested that the EU buy about $350bn of US energy in order to reduce its trade deficit, simultaneously dismissing an overture from Brussels to do a “zero-for-zero” tariff deal on industrial goods and cars.

The US is already the biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas to the bloc, accounting for 45 per cent of its imports in 2024 at a value of about $13bn.

“There is potential for us to buy more LNG from the US but of course it needs to be on conditions that are also in line with our [green] transition,” Jørgensen said, adding that he had signalled this to the US energy secretary Chris Wright. But there is little Brussels can do other than encourage companies to sign contracts.

The European Commission expects a record 89 gigawatts of renewable power capacity to be installed in the EU in 2025, including an additional 19GW of wind power and 70GW of solar. That’s despite the global economic turmoil and complaints from industry about long waits for permits and poor grid connections.

Jørgensen said renewable power was “essential” to bring down high energy prices and end the bloc’s reliance on imports of Russian fossil fuels.

“We are all well aware that the high energy prices we are paying are not sustainable in the global competition in the future,’’ he said. ‘‘We have spent more money buying fossil fuels from Russia since 2022 than we have given in aid to Ukraine”.

Jørgensen will announce the figures for renewable deployment at an industry conference in Copenhagen on Thursday in an attempt to encourage offshore wind investors pummelled by the impact of Trump’s fossil fuel agenda to push ahead with projects.

Rasmus Errboe, chief executive of the world’s largest offshore wind developer Ørsted, warned on Wednesday that Europe’s wind industry was at risk of a “downward spiral” because of high costs and supply chain disruptions.

The EU approved its initial response to Trump’s tariffs on Wednesday, after he announced the sweeping measures which amount to the biggest trade war since the 1930s.

Trade body WindEurope said it expected new wind power capacity in Europe to increase 34 per cent this year compared with 2024, but that new installations last year had been lower than expected, with progress held up by ongoing issues over permits, and bottlenecks for connections to the grid.

The solar industry warned that year-on-year capacity growth had slowed dramatically from 53 per cent in 2023 to 4 per cent last year for similar reasons.

Ørsted is one of several European companies whose US projects will be hit by Trump’s tariffs on aluminium and steel because of their reliance on imported components from Europe.

EU solar sector exports to the US are ‘‘relatively small’’ according to industry body SolarPower Europe, but the impact could be “significant” for companies involved in exporting certain key components.

Jørgensen said that the EU could benefit from the turmoil caused by the tariffs and the economic fallout: “I think this crisis that the world economy is in right now will make it even more attractive for companies to seek safe havens in places where there is predictability and Europe is such a place.”

He said that the bloc would not backtrack on its green agenda but wanted to simplify rules governing renewable energy. Average wait times for permits should be cut from between five and seven years to just six months, he said, adding that “nature protection directives are part of the challenge” and would have to be addressed.

Musk’s cull of agency’s workers disproportionately affected staff overseeing tech on which he has staked Tesla’s future

Job cuts at the US traffic safety regulator instigated by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency disproportionately hit staff assessing self-driving risks, hampering oversight of technology on which the world’s richest man has staked the future of Tesla.

Of roughly 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration workers dismissed in February as part of Musk’s campaign to shrink the federal workforce, many were in the “office of vehicle automation safety”, people familiar with the situation told the Financial Times.

The cuts are part of mass firings by Doge that have affected at least 20,000 federal employees and raised widespread concern over potential conflicts of interest for Musk given many of the targeted agencies regulate or have contracts with his businesses.

The NHTSA, which has been a thorn in Tesla’s side for years, has eight active investigations into the company after receiving — and publishing — more than 10,000 complaints from members of the public.

Morale at the agency, which has ordered dozens of Tesla recalls and delayed the rollout of the group’s self-driving and driver-assistance software, has plunged following Doge’s opening salvo of job cuts, according to current and former NHTSA staff.

“There is a clear conflict of interest in allowing someone with a business interest influence over appointments and policy at the agency regulating them,” said one former senior NHTSA figure, who was not among the Doge-led lay-offs. 

Remaining agency employees are now warily watching the experience of other federal regulators that have crossed Musk’s companies.

“Musk has attacked the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission to benefit SpaceX,” said another former top official at the regulator. “Why would he spare NHTSA?”

Musk has repeatedly clashed with federal and state authorities. Last year he called for the FAA chief to resign and sharply criticised the FCC for revoking a 2022 deal for his satellite telecommunications company Starlink to provide rural broadband.

The NHTSA said in a statement that safety remained its top priority and that it would enforce the law on any carmaker in line with its rules and investigations. “The agency’s investigations have been and will continue to be independent,” it added.

Musk, Doge and Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The dismissals, instigated by email on Valentine’s Day, affected roughly 4 per cent of the agency’s 800 staff and included employees who had been promised promotions as well as newly hired workers, according to seven people familiar with the matter.

Staff working on vehicle automation safety were disproportionately affected, some of the people said, because the division was only formed in 2023 so comprised many newer hires still on probation.  

The email cited poor performance as a reason for the dismissals. However, one senior figure still at the NHTSA rejected the notion that this was the basis for the lay-offs. Another said morale was low after “some huge talent losses”.

Doge’s actions could hamper Tesla’s plans, according to one laid-off agency worker, who said the dismissals would “certainly weaken NHTSA’s ability to understand self-driving technologies”. 

“This is an office that should be on the cutting edge of how to handle AVs [autonomous vehicles] and figuring out what future rulemaking should look like,” said another former NHTSA employee. “It would be ironic if Doge slowed down Tesla.”

The company has a lot riding on the swift success of its so-called Full Self-Driving software.

Musk has promised customers and investors that Tesla will launch a driverless ride-hailing service in Austin, Texas by June and start production of a fleet of autonomous “cybercabs” next year.

To do so, Tesla needs an exemption from the NHTSA to operate a non-standard driverless vehicle on American roads because Musk’s cybercabs have neither pedals nor a steering wheel.

“Letting Doge fire those in the autonomous division is sheer madness — we should be lobbying to add people to NHTSA,” said one manager at Tesla. They “need to be developing a national framework for AVs, otherwise Tesla doesn’t have a prayer for scale in FSD or robotaxis”.

The NHTSA’s decision on the cybercab exemption and the future of its proposed AV STEP programme to evaluate and oversee driverless and assisted cars will be closely watched considering the high stakes for Tesla.

Current and former NHTSA officials have privately expressed concerns about Musk’s ambitious rollout plans and how he would wield his influence to ensure a speedy launch of the cybercab and unsupervised FSD on US roads. 

The government could “speed up the [AV STEP] application process and weaken it in some way so the safety case is less onerous to meet,” one person told the FT.

The future of crash reporting is another area of concern for those at the agency, following reports that the Trump administration may seek to loosen or eliminate disclosure rules.

After a spate of incidents, the NHTSA in 2021 introduced a standing general order that requires carmakers to report within 24 hours any serious accidents involving vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance or automated driving systems.

Enforcing the order has been a vital tool for the agency to launch investigations into Tesla and other carmakers because there is no federal regulatory framework to govern cars not under human control.

It was critical for a recall of 2mn Teslas in December 2023 for an update that would force drivers to pay attention when its autopilot assistance software was engaged.

“Crash reporting is vital, the massive Tesla recall on autopilot could not have occurred without it. We got a huge amount of info on crashes and followed up with demands for more data and video,” said one person involved in the recall. “But everything seems to be fair game right now.”

One person familiar with Musk’s thinking said the company felt unfairly penalised by the rules because its sensors and video recording are more advanced than rivals’ so it files more complete data.

“Reporters see that we are reporting more incidents — many of which have nothing to do with autopilot — and have told the wrong story about our safety record,” the person said. “There is a healthy amount of frustration about that dynamic . . . the idea our bar for safety is lower is just wrong.”

The NHTSA has shown no signs of backing down, overseeing three new recalls of Tesla vehicles since Trump took office, most recently ordering 46,000 Cybertrucks to be checked after discovering an exterior panel was prone to falling off because of faulty glue.

Of its eight active investigations into Tesla vehicles, five concern Musk’s claims about the capabilities of the company’s Autopilot driver-assistance system and its FSD software — central promises of Tesla’s value proposition, and the subject of thousands of consumer complaints.

The agency has received an average of 20 per month on FSD since the software was launched, according to an FT analysis of more than 10,000 complaints.

A sharp rise in complaints about so-called “phantom braking” at the start of 2022 triggered one of the investigations. In one, about a mid-October 2024 incident, a Tesla Model 3 in FSD suddenly stopped in front of a car that would have crashed into it had the Tesla driver not taken back control of the vehicle and accelerated. 

“Software is so far from being ready to be safely used,” the Model 3 driver said in the complaint. 

While multiple Tesla tech updates in the past two years have reduced complaints about braking glitches, other software issues persist. The FT analysis, which used artificial intelligence to categorise complaints, shows errors connected to driver-assist tools such as FSD and Autopilot still make up a large share of complaints made against the company in the past year.

In February, the driver of a 2024 Cybertruck reported that FSD disengaged without warning, causing the vehicle to suddenly accelerate and nearly collide head-on with another car. The owner said they contacted Tesla service but the vehicle was neither inspected nor repaired.

Former Apple executive Jonathan Morrison has been nominated by Trump as the NHTSA’s next administrator and must find a way to navigate the agency through the perceived conflicts of interest with Musk, without being accused of stifling AV innovation.

“Elon has done a lot of really interesting things with tech that were thought to be impossible,” said one former top NHTSA official.

“What concerns me is that Tesla is not known for taking a slow and methodical approach, they move fast and break things and people are at risk because of that. There have been preventable deaths, so it’s an immediate concern for us.”