Tesla advocates for a federal framework on autonomous driving in the Senate

On February 4, 2026, Tesla reaches a major institutional milestone in its quest to democratize autonomous driving. Lars Moravy, Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, testifies before the prestigious US Senate Commerce Committee. The challenge? To convince legislators to adopt a unified federal framework rather than letting each state dictate its own rules.

In a context of fierce geopolitical competition between the United States and China over autonomous driving technologies, Tesla wants to prevent administrative bureaucracy from hindering American innovation. On the agenda for this hearing: impressive safety statistics, answers on cybersecurity, and an ambitious social vision of mobility accessible to all.

Tesla steps up before the US Senate

Lars Moravy is no stranger to the Tesla ecosystem. As VP of Vehicle Engineering, he knows every technical aspect of the autonomous driving developed by the company. His presence before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is significant: this body determines major regulatory guidelines for transportation and technology.

Tesla is adopting an overt institutional lobbying strategy here. Rather than being subjected to imposed legislation, the company prefers to actively participate in its construction. The objective is clear: to influence the rules of the game before they are definitively set.

The current political climate complicates matters. With regulatory fragmentation where each US state defines its own standards, Tesla faces a legal and operational headache. As a technological leader in autonomous driving, the company seeks to secure its lead by advocating for federal harmonization.

The plea for unified federal regulation

The current patchwork hinders innovation

Today, deploying an autonomous driving system in the United States is an uphill battle. Each state imposes its own requirements: some allow testing without a safety driver, others demand specific certifications, and still others simply prohibit certain features.

Imagine having to homologate a Tesla Model 3 differently for each French region, with contradictory standards between Île-de-France and Brittany. This is exactly the current American situation. Costs multiply, delays lengthen, and innovation slows down.

The geopolitical argument: not to lose to China

Tesla cleverly plays the patriotic card. The technological rivalry between the United States and China is no longer a secret, and the autonomous driving sector represents a major strategic issue.

China is advancing rapidly thanks to a coordinated national framework that facilitates large-scale deployments. Meanwhile, fragmented American bureaucracy risks causing the United States to lose its leadership in this crucial area. Tesla thus transforms its commercial agenda into a question of technological sovereignty and American competitiveness.

Impressive safety figures to convince

The statistics presented by Tesla are hard to dispute on paper. The FSD Supervised system shows an average of 5.1 million miles driven before a major collision, compared to only 699,000 miles for an average human driver. The calculation is simple: the Tesla system would be 7.3 times safer than a human behind the wheel.

These data are part of a broader finding established by the NHTSA: 94% of road accidents are caused by human error. Distraction, fatigue, alcohol, excessive speed… all factors that autonomous systems mechanically eliminate.

With over 40,000 annual deaths on American roads, the potential for massive mortality reduction becomes a powerful moral argument. If you’ve never tested the system, I invite you to discover how FSD supervised driving really works in real-world conditions.

Let’s remain clear-headed, however: these figures come from Tesla itself. One can legitimately wonder under what operating conditions they were collected. Favorable roads? Mild weather? Particularly attentive drivers? Nevertheless, the statistical trend remains impressive, and my personal experience with FSD helps me understand these results.

Cybersecurity: addressing legitimate concerns

The cybersecurity of autonomous vehicles represents a major and perfectly legitimate concern raised during the hearing. The catastrophic scenario of external control of a fleet of robotaxis by hackers or cyberterrorists haunts the collective imagination.

Tesla responds with a factual record: zero external takeovers ever successfully achieved on a vehicle of the brand. This performance is explained by a technical architecture designed around safety from the outset.

The company notably uses a double cryptographic signature system for all critical commands. The central vehicle control layer remains isolated from the network, and redundant systems ensure the maintenance of essential functions even in the event of a peripheral layer compromise.

This approach is part of Tesla’s overall IT security philosophy, found in features like Sentry Mode or secure OTA updates. Vigilance remains essential, however, as no system is invulnerable indefinitely.

The social argument: mobility for all

Beyond technical and safety considerations, Tesla deploys a particularly convincing inclusive vision. Autonomous driving could radically transform the lives of millions of people currently deprived of individual mobility.

People with disabilities, the elderly, the visually impaired, or simply those without a driver’s license could regain restored autonomy thanks to robotaxis. This vision of driving accessible to all through autonomous driving could revolutionize our relationship with transport.

It is undeniably a clever marketing argument, but it is also a real societal promise. The two dimensions coexist without contradicting each other. Tesla’s transformative ambition goes beyond simple profit to address issues of equity and social inclusion.

The coming months will be decisive. The decisions of the US Senate will shape the regulatory landscape for the next decade. Other manufacturers like GM Cruise or Waymo are watching closely, as the American precedent will likely influence the competent European authorities in their own deliberations.

As a Tesla owner, I am closely following this regulatory evolution, as it will determine the speed at which we can benefit from technological advancements. While awaiting political decisions, continuous driving improvements on our vehicles continue via OTA updates, reminding us that innovation doesn’t always wait for bureaucrats.