A new presidential administration is nearly upon us, and with it, the autonomous-vehicle sector hopes, will come major changes to the way the federal government regulates driverless cars and trucks.
Tech Brew previously noted why AV sector leaders are enthusiastic about a reported plan by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to establish a federal regulatory framework for AVs. Introducing a federal rule, stakeholders in the sector believe, will speed up their ability to get driverless vehicles onto US roads and boost confidence in a technology about which the public has some doubts.
At CES 2025, we caught up with Earl Adams Jr., the newly appointed VP of public policy and regulatory affairs for Plus AI, a Santa Clara, California-based autonomous driving tech company that provides AV software to trucking companies.
Adams, now in his second week on the job at Plus, has more than 20 years of experience in transportation policy and regulation, according to a news release. He previously served as the deputy administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and, most recently, as a partner at global law firm Hogan Lovells. In both roles, he worked on issues related to AV policy.
As the Republican trifecta takes on the mantle of leadership in Washington, Plus is working with its commercial vehicle partners (including the Traton Group’s commercial truck brands, Hyundai, and Iveco) to test, validate, and eventually commercially deploy driverless trucks in the US and Europe. It’s aiming to launch commercial operations in Texas by 2027.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What are you focused on as you get started?
When I think about the regulatory framework, the reality is that right now, because there’s no federal set standard, the states are the ones that are driving them…I did just recently leave FMCSA. I was a deputy administrator. And what the federal government has always done, what DOT does very well when it comes to emerging tech, is sort of setting the guardrails and making sure that you don’t get in the way of the innovation, but you at least establish what the guardrails should be…So, when I look at 2025 and what’s on the horizon, the reality is that I think there’s a strong indication that the incoming administration is going to continue the work that it did in the first Trump administration. They were very active, they were engaged. They sort of set a vision and allowed the industry to grow and develop as it wants…There’s a belief that with rules comes certainty. And as we’re looking at commercialization happening by 2027, certainty is a good thing. And if you’re able to…say, “Here is a standard that you can now engineer toward, that you can now plan toward,” that would actually help in bringing that commercialization date to fruition. Now, if it doesn’t happen, I think you’ll continue to see the development that we’re seeing now, but it would actually be beneficial to the industry as a whole, I think, if there is that one federal standard.
Another thing that’s been on my mind is public acceptance. Not that having a rule will allow the public to feel comfortable…I don’t think as an industry we’ve figured out how you make people comfortable with the idea of an 80,000-pound truck going down the road without a driver. That’s a part of the education and exposure that needs to happen…I do think that it is a starting point for getting people comfortable with the idea that there is a baseline level of safety. When they see this truck on the road, it has met some type of safety standard. If I had my wish list to give to the incoming administration, it would be, for that reason alone, I think it would be beneficial to have some type of significant federal engagement around it.
What do you think a good roadmap to a federal rule looks like?
Keep up with the innovative tech transforming business
Tech Brew keeps business leaders up-to-date on the latest innovations, automation advances, policy shifts, and more, so they can make informed decisions about tech.
The rulemaking process…that’s well-worn ground. DOT needs to put out their proposal and then allow for the industry to react. And then there is that iterative process where there’s discussion, response, follow-up. I think that’s a really good model. And if that’s the path that they ultimately take, I think in the end it will be a good outcome.
The legislative side, the congressional piece, is another one. When we had two-party control, I wasn’t too bullish that it was possible that you would be able to get congressional legislative action. With one-party control of both chambers and a willing and engaged White House, I think it is very possible that you might see…collaboration. Congress could use its power, hearings. There’s some good proposals that are out there around what federal vehicle safety standards could look like. And if Congress could actually move some type of bill that required DOT to engage, setting some parameters—these are the things you need to make sure that you include in your rule—that would actually, I think, also be a pretty good outcome. Because it would represent a full attempt at the entire system working together to find a common path.
What we don’t want to see is one-off proposals––one group going one way, another group going another way. That sort of slows things down. But if everyone is walking in the same sort of general direction, that could be a benefit.
Is there consensus in the AV sector about the path forward?
There are probably some individual quirks that folks would like to see. But I think broadly, the idea of having a rule that is going to establish a minimum level of safety [and] remains technology-agnostic…but that establishes some basic level of safety standard that a company can use and put that forth, whether it’s to investors, whether it’s to community groups, whether it’s to local policy people and say, “Hey, we’ve met this standard,” I think that’s the direction we’re trying to go in.
What does it mean for other players in the sector that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has the president-elect’s ear? Is it helpful to have somebody with that direct line? Is it risky?
I think, on balance, it’s a good thing. At the same time, it’s always risky when you have one sort of viewpoint being expressed…I think a lot of other industries would love to have someone as close as Elon is to the president-elect, advocating for and obviously having a very deep understanding of the industry. But…the companies, the associations, are going to continue to be engaged and make sure that we’re telling our story, as well. Because there are differences. There are some unique aspects of it. So we’re going to make sure that we continue to be engaged on our own. But it never hurts having someone as close as Elon is to [Trump].
What do you expect from the tech policy agenda in the next few years?
I think that the idea of the use of AI across various sectors is going to continue to be significant. Whether or not it’s actual regulatory action, you’re going to see a lot of discussion. And this will be a real point of diversion from where the Biden administration was. I was on record when I was in the administration that I thought that it was important that we moved away from this one-size-fits-all approach to AI. The AI use in the technology sector is different than…how banks use AI or how companies use AI.
But ultimately, to bring it full circle back to having someone like Musk at the table, I think that transportation and the specific uses of AI within that sector are going to get the more appropriate attention that they deserve, as opposed to what was happening in the Biden administration, when it really was a one-size-fits-all.