Lawmaker Demands Federal Investigation After Dozens of Tesla Drivers Are Caught Sleeping Behind the Wheel on FSD and Autopilot

The ongoing debate surrounding the real-world safety, marketing practices, and regulatory oversight of advanced driver-assistance systems has intensified following a fresh wave of scrutiny from Capitol Hill. U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois has formally requested immediate intervention from federal transportation authorities after a compiled media investigation revealed dozens of instances where Tesla motorists were seemingly asleep while operating vehicles equipped with Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Autopilot capabilities.

The escalating controversy underscores a persistent tension in the modern automotive landscape: the widening gap between advanced automation marketing and the actual limitations of Level 2 driver-assistance technologies. As automakers race toward fully autonomous futures, regulators, safety advocates, and lawmakers are increasingly forced to grapple with the human element—specifically, how drivers interact with, interpret, and frequently circumvent the safeguards designed to keep them alert.

The Congressional Demand for Federal Action

On Thursday, Representative Krishnamoorthi released an official statement detailing a formal inquiry sent directly to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The congressional letter specifically targets the federal agencies’ oversight of Tesla’s marketing and driver-monitoring mechanisms, demanding answers regarding what steps are being taken to curb the alarming trend of motorists abdicating their driving responsibilities.

The lawmaker’s intervention was catalyzed by a comprehensive investigative report published by NBC News, which documented more than 40 separate video instances of Tesla operators seemingly asleep or deeply distracted while their cars navigated public highways at high speeds. Notably, the report highlighted that at least 17 of these concerning videos surfaced in 2026 alone, demonstrating that the phenomenon is not merely a relic of earlier software iterations but an ongoing safety challenge. Furthermore, the investigation revealed 13 additional cases in California where motorists were formally cited by law enforcement for reckless or unsafe driving linked to improper use of automated driving features.

In his letter, Krishnamoorthi pressed NHTSA leadership on the scope of data the agency has gathered concerning driver misuse, the current efficacy assessments of Tesla’s driver-engagement tracking systems, and whether these accumulated findings point toward a systemic safety defect that could eventually mandate a formal federal vehicle recall.

A History of Nomenclature and Public Confusion

The core of the controversy traces back to Tesla’s long-standing strategy regarding the branding of its proprietary software suites: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (often abbreviated as FSD). Despite explicit terminology that implies complete vehicle autonomy, neither software system qualifies as true autonomous driving under the standardized definitions established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

Both Autopilot and FSD operate strictly as Level 2 systems. Under SAE classifications, Level 2 automation requires the human driver to maintain continuous supervision of the driving environment, keep their hands on or near the controls, and remain entirely prepared to take over manual steering and braking at a moment’s notice. The driver remains legally, ethically, and physically accountable for every action of the vehicle.

Critics and safety watchdogs have long argued that names like "Full Self-Driving" are inherently misleading, creating a false sense of security among consumers. This psychological phenomenon can foster a lackadaisical attitude toward road safety, leading motorists to engage in high-risk behaviors—such as checking out, reading, using smartphones, or falling asleep—under the mistaken belief that the vehicle is capable of safely navigating completely unassisted.

International and domestic lawmakers have repeatedly pushed back against these naming conventions. Several state regulatory bodies, most notably the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), have taken administrative action or initiated legal proceedings against Tesla, accusing the automaker of deceptive marketing practices regarding the true capabilities of its driver-assist tech.

The Cat-and-Mouse Game of Driver Monitoring

Tesla is well aware of the risks associated with driver inattention and has implemented various technological safeguards within its vehicle cabins to enforce compliance. Modern Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot and FSD utilize a combination of steering wheel torque sensors—colloquially referred to as "the nag"—and cabin-facing interior cameras mounted near the rearview mirror.

The cabin camera actively monitors the driver’s head position, eye gaze, and general attentiveness. If the system detects that a driver’s eyes are closed for an extended period, or if they are persistently looking away from the road, visual and audible alerts are triggered. If the driver fails to respond to these escalating warnings, the system will initiate a slow-down procedure and eventually lock the driver out of using the feature for the remainder of that trip. Similarly, the steering wheel sensor expects to feel subtle, intermittent micro-inputs from the driver’s hands to confirm physical engagement.

However, a persistent cat-and-mouse dynamic has emerged between Tesla’s engineering teams and resourceful motorists intent on circumventing these safety checks. Over the years, users have devised numerous workarounds to trick the monitoring systems. Some motorists wear specialized sunglasses designed to obscure eye-tracking cameras while still allowing forward vision. Others have resorted to placing physical props—such as printed photographs of their own faces or novelty doll heads—directly in front of the cabin lens to simulate an attentive human presence. Additional aftermarket accessories, including weighted steering wheel covers designed to simulate the physical resistance of human hands, have also circulated widely online.

These workarounds enable motorists to effectively defeat both software constraints and legal boundaries. When interviewed for journalistic investigations, some drivers readily admit to engaging in unlawful behaviors, such as napping during long highway commutes. Many justify their actions by pointing to the software’s continuous over-the-air improvements, arguing that the technological evolution of FSD makes it reliable enough to trust with their lives—even if doing so violates the explicit terms of service and state laws.

Economic Incentives and the Ergonomic Balance

Automakers face a delicate balancing act when designing driver-monitoring systems. If a system is overly aggressive—issuing constant warnings, frequent acoustic chimes, or premature feature lockouts—it risks frustrating the consumer base. In worst-case scenarios, excessive "nags" can alienate users, leading them to abandon the software entirely.

For Tesla, maintaining user satisfaction is an intense commercial priority. FSD is offered as a premium software package, currently structured around a subscription model priced at $99 per month, in addition to upfront purchase options costing thousands of dollars. With millions of vehicles equipped or subscribed to the software, FSD represents a vital revenue stream and a cornerstone of the company’s broader corporate valuation strategy, which is heavily tethered to autonomous driving promises. Consequently, engineering a system that feels seamless and frictionless to use while maintaining strict regulatory compliance is a formidable engineering and design challenge.

Broad Regulatory Implications and Ongoing Investigations

The renewed push from Capitol Hill arrives while NHTSA already maintains an active, expansive investigation into millions of Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD. Federal investigators have spent considerable time examining previous crashes, phantom braking incidents, and situations where the software failed to respond appropriately to emergency vehicles, roadside hazards, or low-visibility conditions.

As federal agencies weigh their next moves, the broader debate transcends mere corporate compliance. It forces the entire automotive industry to confront critical questions regarding liability, consumer education, and the ethics of deploying semi-autonomous technology on public infrastructure shared by millions of vulnerable road users.

While the legal consensus remains unequivocally clear—that the human driver seated behind the steering wheel bears total responsibility for maintaining control and remaining awake—the ongoing controversy highlights profound vulnerabilities in how advanced driver-assistance features are marketed, monitored, and regulated in the twenty-first century. Whether congressional pressure will compel NHTSA to mandate standardized, foolproof driver-monitoring protocols or prompt stricter enforcement actions against automakers remains one of the most critical safety storylines in the contemporary automotive sector.