Federal scrutiny of Tesla’s sleek, electronic doors has shifted from the lab to the legislature, with a new proposal in Congress that would write old-fashioned manual releases back into modern car design. The bill, framed as a response to crash investigations and consumer complaints, puts a specific piece of Tesla’s brand identity at the center of a broader fight over how far automotive innovation can go before it collides with basic safety expectations.
At stake is not just one company’s hardware choice but the rules that will govern how drivers and first responders escape from increasingly software-driven vehicles. As regulators probe whether hidden or power-dependent handles have already trapped people in emergencies, lawmakers are testing whether the law should force every electric vehicle to keep a simple, mechanical way out.
The SAFE Exit Act puts Tesla’s doors in lawmakers’ sights
The new legislative push arrives in the form of the SAFE Exit Act, a proposal that would set a national standard for how electric vehicle doors must work in an emergency. U.S. Representative Robin Kelly has positioned the measure as a response to the way companies like Tesla have buried traditional handles in favor of flush, electronic mechanisms, arguing that as the auto industry continues to innovate, Congress has to ensure people can still get out of a car when power or software fails. In her announcement, she described the SAFE Exit Act as a way to make a clear safety baseline for electric vehicle doors, a move that directly targets the design choices that have made Tesla’s cars stand out on the road, and she has highlighted that the bill is endorsed by groups identified as Cons in the official release, underscoring that safety advocates see a gap the market has not closed on its own.
The bill would require automakers to include manual, mechanical releases that are easy to find and operate, even for someone unfamiliar with a particular model, and it is explicitly framed as a response to concerns about Tesla’s approach to door hardware. In the official description, Representative Kelly links the SAFE Exit Act to a pattern of incidents in which electronic systems failed or confused occupants, and she casts the legislation as a way to prevent people from being trapped by design choices that prioritize aesthetics or aerodynamics over basic egress. That framing is spelled out in her office’s explanation of the SAFE Exit Act, which explicitly calls out Tesla’s electric vehicle door systems as a catalyst.
How Tesla’s flush handles became a safety flashpoint
Tesla built its brand on minimalist design, and its flush, power-operated door handles have become one of the company’s most recognizable signatures. On models like the Model 3 and Model Y, the exterior handles sit nearly flat against the body and often require a specific push or pull motion, while interior releases can be small buttons or levers that are not immediately obvious to new occupants. That design has been praised for its clean look and aerodynamic benefits, but it has also drawn criticism from safety experts who argue that in a panic, people reach for obvious, mechanical latches, not hidden switches that depend on electronics.
Those concerns are no longer hypothetical. Federal investigators have opened multiple probes into whether Tesla’s door systems can fail or confuse occupants at the worst possible moment, including situations where power is lost after a crash. Reports compiled by regulators and plaintiffs’ lawyers describe scenarios in which people struggled to find the right release or discovered that an electronic handle had become inoperative, raising the question of whether a design meant to look futuristic has instead introduced a new kind of risk. That tension between style and safety is now central to the debate over whether Congress should force companies to keep a simple mechanical backup, even in the most advanced electric vehicles.
Federal probes into Tesla’s door handles set the stage
Before lawmakers stepped in, regulators were already circling Tesla’s door design. Late last year, federal safety officials widened an investigation into whether the company’s electronic handles could fail, ordering Tesla to provide detailed data on complaints and incidents. That probe, which focused on whether doors could become inoperative after a crash or power loss, underscored that the issue was not just about user confusion but about hardware that might not work when it is needed most, and it put Elon Musk’s company under pressure to explain how its systems behave in real-world emergencies.
In one inquiry, regulators examined whether the emergency releases in certain Model 3 vehicles were too hard to find or use, especially for passengers who had not been briefed on the car’s quirks. The investigation looked at whether the manual levers were hidden or unlabeled in a way that could leave people fumbling in a crisis, and it drew on complaints from drivers who said they worried about their children or other occupants being unable to get out quickly. Those concerns are detailed in federal documents that describe how Tesla has been ordered to turn over information about door handle safety issues, and in separate summaries that recount how Key Facts from The NHTSA and its Office of Defects Investigations show an inquiry opened on a Wednesday into whether Model 3 manual door handles are hidden and unlabeled.
Model 3 and Model Y investigations highlight real-world risks
The scrutiny has zeroed in on specific Tesla models that are now common on American roads. The US auto safety regulator has opened a defect investigation into Tesla Model 3 compact sedans, focusing on whether their interior emergency releases are intuitive enough to locate during emergencies. Officials have noted that the layout and labeling of the manual levers could be confusing, particularly for passengers who are not familiar with Tesla’s interface, and they have raised questions about whether the design meets the spirit of rules meant to ensure quick egress. The same documents point out that Elon Musk’s Tesla did not immediately respond to detailed questions about how occupants are instructed to use the manual releases when the luxury sedan’s doors lose power.
Regulators are also evaluating more than 174,000 Tesla Model Y vehicles over reports that their electronic door handles can become inoperative, a problem that could leave people trapped if a crash or system failure knocks out power. That investigation, launched by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is examining whether the handles fail in a way that violates federal safety standards and whether Tesla’s backup mechanisms are sufficient. The agency’s notice, which originated in WASHINGTON and was distributed through Reuters, explains that the The US auto safety regulator opened the Model 3 probe on a Wednesday, while a separate filing notes that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is evaluating over 174,000 Model Y vehicles after complaints that electronic door handles can become inoperative.
Fatal crashes and trapped occupants sharpen the stakes
The policy debate is not unfolding in a vacuum. Legal filings and investigative reports have tied Tesla’s door issues to deadly outcomes, arguing that people have been unable to escape vehicles because of the way the handles work. One detailed review, titled Tesla Door Safety Failures Tied to At Least 15 Fatal Crashes Could There Be a Lawsuit, describes how occupants were allegedly trapped when power-dependent systems failed or when they could not quickly locate the manual release. The report argues that these incidents show a pattern in which design decisions about flush handles and electronic latches have real consequences, especially in fires or submersion events where every second matters.
Those accounts have fueled calls for both regulatory action and civil litigation, with plaintiffs’ lawyers framing the door systems as a defect rather than a mere quirk. They point to cases in which first responders struggled to open Tesla doors from the outside and to situations where drivers say they had to coach passengers through unfamiliar release procedures while smoke or flames spread. The legal analysis emphasizes that when power or electronic systems fail, a purely mechanical backup can be the difference between life and death, and it uses that argument to support the push for mandatory manual releases in all electric vehicles. The stakes are spelled out in the detailed discussion of how Tesla Door Safety Failures Tied to At Least 15 Fatal Crashes Could There Be a Lawsuit when power or electronic systems fail.
Inside the SAFE Exit Act’s manual-release mandate
Against that backdrop, the SAFE Exit Act’s core requirement is straightforward: every electric vehicle would need a clearly labeled, mechanical way to open each door from the inside, independent of the car’s electrical system. The bill envisions a standard that would apply across manufacturers, eliminating the current patchwork in which some models rely heavily on electronic buttons while others keep traditional levers. By writing a manual-release mandate into law, lawmakers aim to remove any ambiguity about whether a sleek design can omit a simple latch, and they are signaling that in the hierarchy of priorities, escape routes outrank styling.
Supporters argue that the measure would not ban innovation but would instead set a floor that all new designs must respect. Automakers could still experiment with touch-sensitive panels, retractable handles, or app-based access, as long as a physical backup is present and obvious. The legislative language, as described in Kelly’s announcement, reflects a belief that market forces alone have not guaranteed that outcome, particularly in vehicles that lean heavily on software. That perspective is echoed in coverage of how a US lawmaker is readying a bill requiring manual door handles in cars, with reporting that identifies Jan, PST, Dana Hull, Bloomberg News, and Richard Clough as key figures in explaining how the proposal responds to risks posed by electrically controlled doors, and in separate summaries of how Dana Hull and Richard Clough describe the manual-handle requirement.
How the bill fits into a broader safety and political landscape
The SAFE Exit Act is emerging at a moment when Washington is still figuring out how to regulate electric vehicles without choking off innovation. President Donald Trump has repeatedly framed his administration’s approach as pro-industry, but the growing list of probes into Tesla’s hardware has made it harder for lawmakers to ignore safety complaints tied to high-profile brands. Representative Kelly’s effort reflects a calculation that requiring manual door releases is a relatively narrow intervention that can be sold as common sense, rather than as an attack on the broader shift to electric powertrains.
Even so, the bill’s path is uncertain. Reporting on the legislative push notes that it is unclear how much support the effort has with other lawmakers and that the measure may not end up being signed into law, a reminder that many safety proposals stall before reaching the president’s desk. Industry lobbying, partisan divides over regulation, and competing legislative priorities could all slow or reshape the SAFE Exit Act as it moves through committee. That uncertainty is captured in coverage explaining that Jan reports it is unclear how much support the effort has and that the bill may not end up being signed into law, even as it keeps Tesla’s door design in the political spotlight.
Tesla’s partial pivot: redesigns after 140 reports
While lawmakers debate mandates, Tesla has already been forced to adjust its hardware in response to mounting complaints. After a detailed investigation revealed more than 140 reports of doors malfunctioning on different Tesla models, including accounts of occupants being trapped inside burning vehicles, the company announced plans to redesign its door handles. The move signaled that even without new legislation, the combination of federal scrutiny and public pressure can push an automaker to revisit a signature design feature that has become a liability.
The redesign effort underscores how quickly a celebrated innovation can turn into a regulatory headache when it fails in the field. Tesla’s willingness to tweak its handles suggests that the company recognizes the reputational risk of being associated with stories of trapped occupants, particularly as rivals tout their own safety credentials. At the same time, the fact that it took more than 140 malfunction reports and a federal investigation to prompt changes raises questions about whether voluntary fixes arrive too late for some drivers. Those dynamics are laid out in coverage of how Tesla moved to redesign door handles following over 140 reports of trapped occupants and federal investigators examining cases of people being trapped inside burning vehicles.
What happens next for drivers, regulators, and Tesla
For drivers, the immediate takeaway is practical rather than political: anyone who owns a Tesla or another vehicle with unconventional door hardware should learn exactly how the manual releases work and make sure passengers know where to find them. The investigations and lawsuits show that confusion in the first seconds after a crash can be deadly, and no pending bill can substitute for basic familiarity with a car’s escape routes. Safety advocates are urging owners to treat door-release briefings the way they might treat instructions on child locks or seat adjustments, especially when handing the keys to new drivers or transporting children and older adults.
For regulators and Tesla, the next phase will likely involve a mix of technical fixes, potential recalls, and continued political pressure. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will decide whether the Model 3 and Model Y probes warrant formal defect findings or mandated repairs, while lawmakers weigh whether to codify manual-release requirements that would apply to every future electric vehicle sold in the United States. Coverage of the legislative rollout notes that Jan and PUBLISHED references in one report describe how Tesla’s door design is targeted by a new US automotive safety bill and a focus on how the proposal would affect Tesla, and that another summary of the same development highlights how Tesla door design is targeted by a new US automotive safety bill that cites the figure 52 and identifies Tesla, Bloomberg, PUBLISHED, and PST as key details. Separate reporting on how a US lawmaker unveils a bill requiring manual car-door releases, which appears alongside content labeled 3 Signs You May Want to Switch Financial Advisors and SmartA, and on how the auto safety regulator opened a probe into the emergency releases in certain Model 3 vehicles, shows that the issue is now firmly embedded in both financial and national news coverage, as reflected in descriptions of a US lawmaker unveils bill requiring manual car-door releases and a separate account of how Jan coverage of Model 3 emergency releases details the regulator’s concerns.
More from Morning Overview