News
Tesla’s ventilator donations are being used to provoke Elon Musk into another controversy
During a global pandemic, an optimist would hope that people would work together to help those in need out of the common good. A pessimist would suggest that such circumstances would bring out the worst in people instead. Recent developments in the media coverage of Elon Musk and Tesla’s ventilator donations suggest that the pessimist is right. At times like these, there are entities who choose to provoke people that are willing to help–all for the sake of controversy.
Elon Musk is no stranger to controversy, both self-inflicted or otherwise. Over the past years, Musk has butted heads with several entities, from regulators like the SEC to journalists who tend to cover Tesla with pervading negative slant. Some of these bouts have resulted in a lot of pain for Musk and even Tesla shareholders. An example of this is Musk’s spat with British caver Vern Unsworth, whose defamation case against the CEO over comments following the Thailand cave rescue triggered some TSLA stock swings and extensive coverage from multiple premier news outlets.
Musk has a strong tendency to correct misleading reports. Take CNN’s recent coverage of Tesla’s ventilator donations, for example. The news outlet published a report alleging that no ventilators have reached CA hospitals despite Musk’s commitment to do so. Musk then took it upon himself to correct the report, showing messages between Tesla and the medical professionals from the state communicating about the donated machines and their use.
This, of course, triggered even more staff from CNN to double down, alleging that the non-invasive ventilators donated by Tesla weren’t ventilators at all, despite medical professionals stating that the machines are invaluable for non-critical coronavirus cases. The BiBAPs and CPAPs donated by Tesla could even be retrofitted using a simple modification to work for critical cases. Tesla has also started delivering actual invasive ventilators to hospitals, on top of the company’s efforts to develop its own ventilator using Model 3 parts.
Anyone with an iota of sense would see that Tesla and Musk are pretty much doing what they can to address the needs of medical professionals as much as possible. Are the BiBAPs and CPAP’s donated by Musk useful in the battle against the coronavirus? Medical professionals, government officials, and CEOs of actual ventilator makers would agree. Can the machines be modified to work for more severe cases? The doctors at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York say it’s actually pretty simple to do so. With this in mind, it seems like a no-brainer to conclude that the machines Tesla donated are indeed helping in the battle against the ongoing pandemic.
This point was lost entirely in critical articles that have been published about Musk and Tesla’s donations from outlets such as CNN. One who is unfamiliar with the events that led up to Musk’s recent Twitter interactions would likely think that the Tesla CEO brazenly lied when he committed to donating free ventilators, instead giving away cheap machines that are useless against the C-19 virus. Critics would even refuse to acknowledge non-invasive machines as actual ventilators, despite authorities such as John Hopkins listing them as such.
A key thesis against Musk alleges that he lied about ventilator donations to get some free PR and goodwill. This does not hold water, as Tesla and Musk already receive an insane amount of media coverage, and the company is scrutinized consistently by the media and critics from Wall Street. Thus, the idea of Musk wanting more media coverage to stroke his ego does not seem to make sense, considering that he and his companies actually get a little bit too much coverage. With this in mind, it appears that CNN’s recent reports about Tesla’s ventilator donations, as well as the succeeding tweets from the media outlet’s staff doubling down on their narrative, are designed to do one thing. They are posted to provoke Musk, until such a time when he actually responds with something concretely controversial.
Something similar has happened before. Mention Musk’s name with the Thai cave rescue and many will likely remember the CEO’s incendiary comments against British caver Vern Unsworth. A popular narrative for the event also alleges that Musk stuck his nose into the rescue without prompting so he can get free PR, and that he “attacked” the caver just because he wanted to. The fact that Musk was invited to help, that his team was in close communication with rescuers, and that the caver initiated the verbal spat, are largely forgotten. These experiences, as painful as they may be, must now stand as a huge lesson to Elon Musk.
Musk is no stranger to controversies with the media, and having gone through significant pains over the years because of them, he must handle the ongoing attempts to provoke him with extreme caution. At this point, Musk’s critics (and apparently, CNN staff) are practically salivating at the prospect of the CEO firing off a tweet that can be interpreted as a direct act of aggression against the news outlet or any of its staff. So far, Musk’s responses have been sarcastic, and that’s fine and true to his personality. But the Tesla CEO must be aware that he is not playing a fair game here. Every point of syntax and semantics can and will be exploited to fit a narrative, even if it means twisting the context of a statement. With this in mind, Musk’s best strategy for now is to proceed with a ton of caution, or complete silence.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
