WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jul 24, 2025--
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. (NASDAQ: FFAI) (“Faraday Future”, “FF” or the “Company”), a California-based global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company, held a well-attended and impactful reception at the Capitol Hill Club this week, drawing over a dozen members of Congress and key stakeholders from across the policy and business landscape. The event served as a platform to highlight Faraday Future’s ongoing efforts to bring advanced electric vehicle innovation and manufacturing jobs back to American soil.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250724179085/en/
“We at Faraday Future have expressed our desire to play a role in the great American comeback we are seeing under this Administration, particularly as it relates to the automotive industry, which has been the bedrock of American industry for ages,” said John Schilling, Global Director of Communications and Public Relations at Faraday Future.
The event featured both FF’s cutting-edge FF 91 2.0 electric supercar as well as its recently unveiled FX Super One MPV model. Attendees got a firsthand look at both products and experienced the technology, craftsmanship, and vision driving FF’s expansion strategy.
FF leadership, including FX CEO Max Ma, also met with staff at the White House earlier this week, which included an open dialogue on a number of policy topics such as tariffs, U.S. manufacturing and innovation. FF looks forward to continuing to work closely with the White House in the near future to promote the long-term prosperity of America’s high-end manufacturing sector, centered around the automotive industry and its broader ecosystem.
“We were extremely honored by the attendance of numerous members of Congress who were interested in both our vehicles, because who wouldn’t be, but more importantly, our story about building and employing American,” continued Schilling. “We’re committed to expanding production here at home and look forward to working with Congress and the Trump Administration to help make that vision a reality.”
Faraday Future’s leadership emphasized that the company is aligning with the current Administration’s vision to reindustrialize America and revitalize core manufacturing sectors. With plans to increase domestic production and invest in U.S. jobs, Faraday is proud to be a part of a new chapter in American innovation.
ABOUT FARADAY FUTURE
Faraday Future is a California-based global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company. Founded in 2014, the Company’s mission is to disrupt the automotive industry by creating a user-centric, technology-first, and smart driving experience. Faraday Future’s flagship model, the FF 91, exemplifies its vision for luxury, innovation, and performance. The FX strategy aims to introduce mass production models equipped with state-of-the-art luxury technology similar to the FF 91, targeting a broader market with middle-to-low price range offerings. FF is committed to redefining mobility through AI innovation. Join us in shaping the future of intelligent transportation. For more information, please visit https://www.ff.com/us/.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This press release includes “forward looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this press release, the words “plan to,” “can,” “will,” “should,” “future,” “potential,” and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside the Company’s control, that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements.
Important factors, among others, that may affect actual results or outcomes include, among others: the Company's ability to secure necessary agreements to license or produce FX vehicles in the U.S., the Middle East, or elsewhere, none of which have been secured; the Company's ability to homologate FX vehicles for sale in the U.S., the Middle East, or elsewhere; the Company’s ability to secure the necessary funding to execute on its AI, EREV and Faraday X (FX) strategies, each of which will be substantial; the Company's ability to secure necessary permits at its Hanford, CA production facility; the Company’s ability to secure regulatory approvals for the proposed Super One front grill; the potential impact of tariff policy; the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and improve its liquidity and financial position; the Company’s ability to pay its outstanding obligations; the Company's ability to remediate its material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and the risks related to the restatement of previously issued consolidated financial statements; the Company’s limited operating history and the significant barriers to growth it faces; the Company’s history of losses and expectation of continued losses; the success of the Company’s payroll expense reduction plan; the Company’s ability to execute on its plans to develop and market its vehicles and the timing of these development programs; the Company’s estimates of the size of the markets for its vehicles and cost to bring those vehicles to market; the rate and degree of market acceptance of the Company’s vehicles; the Company’s ability to cover future warranty claims; the success of other competing manufacturers; the performance and security of the Company’s vehicles; current and potential litigation involving the Company; the Company’s ability to receive funds from, satisfy the conditions precedent of and close on the various financings described elsewhere by the Company; the result of future financing efforts, the failure of any of which could result in the Company seeking protection under the Bankruptcy Code; the Company’s indebtedness; the Company’s ability to cover future warranty claims; the Company’s ability to use its “at-the-market” program; insurance coverage; general economic and market conditions impacting demand for the Company’s products; potential negative impacts of a reverse stock split; potential cost, headcount and salary reduction actions may not be sufficient or may not achieve their expected results; circumstances outside of the Company's control, such as natural disasters, climate change, health epidemics and pandemics, terrorist attacks, and civil unrest; risks related to the Company's operations in China; the success of the Company's remedial measures taken in response to the Special Committee findings; the Company’s dependence on its suppliers and contract manufacturer; the Company's ability to develop and protect its technologies; the Company's ability to protect against cybersecurity risks; and the ability of the Company to attract and retain employees, any adverse developments in existing legal proceedings or the initiation of new legal proceedings, and volatility of the Company’s stock price. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the “Risk Factors” section of the Company’s Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 31, 2025, and other documents filed by the Company from time to time with the SEC.
Faraday Future Hosts Successful Capitol Hill Club Reception Showcasing Commitment to American Manufacturing and Innovation
Faraday Future Hosts Successful Capitol Hill Club Reception Showcasing Commitment to American Manufacturing and Innovation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration commissioner's effort to drastically shorten the review of drugs favored by President Donald Trump's administration is causing alarm across the agency, stoking worries that the plan may run afoul of legal, ethical and scientific standards long used to vet the safety and effectiveness of new medicines.
Marty Makary's program is causing new anxiety and confusion among staff already rocked by layoffs, buyouts and leadership upheavals, according to seven current or recently departed staffers. The people spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss confidential agency matters.
At the highest levels of the FDA, questions remain about which officials have the legal authority to sign off on drugs cleared under the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, which promises approval in as little as one month for medicines that support “U.S. national interests.”
Traditionally, approval decisions have nearly always been handled by FDA review scientists and their immediate supervisors, not the agency’s political appointees and senior leaders.
But drug reviewers say they've received little information about the new program's workings. And some staffers working on a highly anticipated anti-obesity pill were recently told they can skip certain regulatory steps to meet top officials' aggressive deadlines.
Outside experts point out that FDA drug reviews — which range from six to 10 months — are already the fastest in the world.
“The concept of doing a review in one to two months just does not have scientific precedent,” said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School. “FDA cannot do the same detailed review that it does of a regular application in one to two months, and it doesn’t have the resources to do it.”
On Thursday Reuters reported that FDA officials have delayed the review of two drugs in the program, in part due to safety concerns, including the death of a patient taking one of the medications.
Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the voucher program prioritizes “gold standard scientific review” and aims to deliver “meaningful and effective treatments and cures."
The program remains popular at the White House, where pricing concessions announced by the Republican president have repeatedly been accompanied by FDA vouchers for drugmakers that agree to cut their prices.
For instance, when the White House announced that Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk would reduce prices on their popular obesity drugs, FDA staffers had to scramble to vet new vouchers for both companies in time for Trump's news conference, according to multiple people involved in the process.
That’s sparked widespread concern that FDA drug reviews — long pegged to objective standards and procedures — have become open to political interference.
“It’s extraordinary to have such an opaque application process, one that is obviously susceptible to politicization,” said Paul Kim, a former FDA attorney who now works with pharmaceutical clients.
Many of the concerns around the program stem from the fact that it hasn't been laid out in federal rules and regulations.
The FDA already has more than a half-dozen programs intended to speed up or streamline reviews for promising drugs — all approved by Congress, with regulations written by agency staff.
In contrast, information about the voucher program is mostly confined to an agency website. Drugmakers can apply by submitting a 350-word “statement of interest.”
Increasingly, agency leaders such as Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top medical officer and vaccine center director, have been contacting drugmakers directly about awarding vouchers. That’s created quandaries for FDA staffers on even basic questions, such as how to formally award a voucher to a company that didn’t request one.
Nixon, the HHS spokesman, said that voucher submissions are evaluated by “a senior, multidisciplinary review committee,” led by Prasad.
Questions about the legality of the program led the FDA’s then-drug director, Dr. George Tidmarsh, to decline to sign off on approvals under the pathway, according to several people with direct knowledge of the matter. Tidmarsh resigned from the agency in November after a lawsuit challenging his conduct on issues unrelated to the voucher program.
After his departure, Sara Brenner, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, was set to have the power to decide, but she also declined the role after looking further into the legal implications, according to the people. Currently the agency’s deputy chief medical officer, Dr. Mallika Mundkur, who works under Prasad, is taking on the responsibility.
Giving final approval to a drug carries significant legal risks, essentially certifying that the medicine meets FDA standards for safety and effectiveness. If unexpected safety problems later emerge, both the agency and individual staffers could be pulled into investigations or lawsuits.
Traditionally, approval comes from FDA drug office directors, made in consultation with a team of reviewers. Under the voucher program, approval comes through a committee vote by senior agency leaders led by Prasad, according to multiple people familiar with the process. Staff reviewers don't get a vote.
“It is a complete reversal from the normal review process, which is traditionally led by the scientists who are the ones immersed in the data,” said Kesselheim, who is a lawyer and a medical researcher.
Not everyone sees problems with the program. Dan Troy, the FDA’s top lawyer under President George W. Bush, a Republican, says federal law gives the commissioner broad discretion to reorganize the handling of drug reviews.
Still, he says, the voucher program, like many of Makary’s initiatives, may be short-lived because it isn't codified.
“If you live by the press release then you die by the press release,” Troy said. “Anything that they’re doing now could be wiped out in a moment by the next administration.”
Initially framed as a pilot program of no more than five drugs, it has expanded to 18 vouchers awarded, with more under consideration. That puts extra pressure on the agency’s drug center, where 20% of the staff has left through retirements, buyouts or resignations over the past year.
When Makary unveiled the program in October there were immediate concerns about the unprecedented power he would have in deciding which companies benefit.
Makary then said that nominations for drugs would come from career staffers. Indeed, some of the early drugs were recommended by FDA reviewers, according to two people familiar with the process. They said FDA staffers deliberately selected drugs that could be vetted quickly.
But, increasingly, selection decisions are led by Prasad or other senior officials, sometimes unbeknownst to FDA staff, according to three people. In one case, FDA reviewers learned from GlaxoSmithKline representatives that Prasad had contacted the company about a voucher.
Access to Makary is limited because he does not use a government email account to do business, according to people familiar with the matter, breaking with longstanding precedent.
Once a voucher is awarded, some drugmakers have their own interpretation of the review timeline — creating further confusion and anxiety among staff.
Two people involved in the ongoing review of Eli Lilly's anti-obesity pill said company executives initially told the FDA they expected the drug approved within two months.
The timeline alarmed FDA reviewers because it did not include the agency's standard 60-day prefiling period, when staffers check the application to ensure it isn’t missing essential information. That 60-day window has been in place for more than 30 years.
Lilly pushed for a quicker filing turnaround, demanding one week. Eventually the agency and the company agreed to a two-week period.
Nixon declined to comment on the specifics of Lilly's review but said FDA reviewers can “adjust timelines as needed.”
Staffers were pushed to keep the application moving forward, even though key pieces of data about the drug's chemistry appeared to be missing, according to one person involved in the process. When reviewers raised concerns about some of the gaps during an internal meeting, the person said, they were told by a senior official: “If the science is sound then you can overlook the regulations.”
Former reviewers and outside experts say that approach is the opposite of how FDA reviews should work: By following the regulations, staffers scientifically confirm the safety and effectiveness of drugs.
Skipping review steps could also carry risks for drugmakers if future FDA leaders decide a drug wasn’t properly vetted. Like other experts, Kesselheim says the program may not last beyond the current administration.
“They are fundamentally changing the application of the standards, but the underlying law remains what it is,” he said. “The hope is that one day we will return to these scientifically sound, legally sound principles.”
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
FILE - The Food and Drug Administration seal is seen at the Hubert Humphrey Building Auditorium in Washington, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks during a press briefing at the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
