NHTSA staffers evaluating the risks of self-driving cars were reportedly fired by DOGE

The Verge - Apr 10th, 2025

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently laid off approximately 30 employees from the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), many of whom were part of the team responsible for assessing self-driving car risks. This move could potentially hamper NHTSA's ability to effectively oversee and understand autonomous vehicle technologies. The layoffs have raised concerns, particularly as Tesla is currently under multiple NHTSA investigations for its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and other automated features. Some former NHTSA employees expressed irony that the firings might delay Tesla's autonomous vehicle ambitions.

The timing of these firings is critical, as they occurred shortly after the NHTSA introduced a new framework aimed at easing regulations on self-driving cars in exchange for increased data sharing from companies. This development is further complicated by pressure from families affected by Tesla-related crashes, who are urging Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to uphold stringent reporting rules for automated vehicle incidents. Concerns have also emerged about Elon Musk's influence within the Trump Administration potentially impacting ongoing investigations and regulatory measures, particularly with the Biden-era rules at stake.

Elon Musk Tesla Nhtsa Department Of Government Efficiency Autopilot Self Driving Cars Full Self Driving Software

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and engaging topic with significant public interest, focusing on the firings of NHTSA employees and their implications for self-driving car regulation. While the story is clear and readable, it suffers from a lack of balance and transparency, as it primarily presents one side of the issue without providing diverse perspectives or sufficient context. The accuracy of certain claims is questionable, as some are not fully substantiated by the available evidence. Despite these weaknesses, the article has the potential to capture attention and provoke discussion, particularly among readers interested in technology and government oversight. To enhance its impact and credibility, the article would benefit from a more balanced presentation and greater transparency regarding the sources and methodology used in the reporting.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that require verification, such as the number of NHTSA employees fired and the specific roles they held. The claim that Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) fired about 30 members of the NHTSA is not conclusively supported by the sources, which suggest a range between 30 and 50 employees. Additionally, the story mentions that the firings could weaken NHTSA's ability to understand self-driving technologies, a claim that reflects opinions but lacks concrete evidence. The article also discusses ongoing investigations into Tesla's automated features, which are factual but need further confirmation regarding their current status and outcomes. Overall, while the story includes some verifiable information, it also contains claims that are not fully substantiated, impacting its overall accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the negative implications of the firings and potential conflicts of interest involving Elon Musk. It highlights concerns from former employees and victims' families but does not provide a balanced view by including perspectives from DOGE, Tesla, or government officials who might offer justifications for the layoffs. This lack of balance results in a one-sided narrative that emphasizes potential risks and criticisms without exploring possible counterarguments or explanations. By omitting these perspectives, the article may inadvertently convey a biased viewpoint, limiting readers' ability to form a well-rounded understanding of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting the key points in a straightforward manner. The narrative flows logically, beginning with the firings and their potential implications before discussing related investigations and regulatory changes. However, some sections could benefit from additional context or explanation, particularly regarding the specific roles and responsibilities of the affected NHTSA employees. Overall, the article is accessible to a general audience, but further elaboration on certain aspects would enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The story cites the Financial Times and mentions statements from former NHTSA employees, which lends some credibility to the information presented. However, it lacks a diverse range of sources, relying heavily on a single publication and unnamed individuals. The absence of direct quotes from official statements or additional authoritative sources weakens the article's reliability. Furthermore, the potential conflict of interest involving Elon Musk's dual role as a government official and Tesla CEO is not sufficiently explored, which could affect the impartiality of the reporting.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in several areas, particularly regarding the methodology used to gather information and the basis for certain claims. It does not clearly disclose the sources of specific data points or explain the context behind the firings and their potential impact on NHTSA's operations. Additionally, the story does not address any conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the reporting, such as the relationship between Elon Musk and the Trump administration. This lack of transparency hinders readers' ability to assess the credibility and motivations behind the article.