News
NHTSA’s incoming senior safety adviser has a serious anti-Tesla Autopilot and FSD bias
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently confirmed that Duke University professor Missy Cummings is poised to be named as its new senior safety adviser. While her credentials as a computer science professor and background as a person knowledgeable about autonomous driving technologies would likely be an essential resource for the NHTSA, Dr. Cummings has exhibited something quite peculiar in social media — She appears to have a serious bias against Tesla, particularly surrounding the company’s Autopilot and Full Self Driving programs.
Over the years, Dr. Cummings, through her personal Twitter account, frequently posted overtly negative statements about Tesla, its vehicles, and its CEO Elon Musk. A number of Tesla owners and supporters who claimed to have not interacted with Dr. Cummings online also observed that they seem to have been preemptively blocked by the incoming NHTSA safety official.
Everybody has a personal bias about something they are passionate about. As such, it is understandable for the Duke University professor to adopt a skeptical stance on Tesla and its Autopilot and FSD programs. There is such a thing as a healthy dose of skepticism, after all. However, or at least based on the incoming NHTSA senior safety official’s Twitter feed, Dr. Cummings appears to have crossed the line from objective to subjective when it comes to Tesla and its technologies. The same goes for her stance regarding CEO Elon Musk. In March 2020, for example, Dr. Cummings seemingly joked about needing someone to stop her from punching Elon Musk in the face.
Punching jokes aside, the Duke University professor also stands as a present member of Veoneer, a Swedish LIDAR company. Publicly available SEC disclosures indicate that Dr. Cummings has received restricted stock units in Veoneer worth about $400,000 a year at present market prices. Considering that Tesla is a company directly competing with Veoneer in the way that it is developing autonomous driving systems with only a vision-based system, there seems to be a conflict of interest at play.
It should be noted that Dr. Cummings’ seat at Veoneer was not disclosed when she published a paper (which was later updated to remove inaccurate details about a fatal Tesla crash) criticizing systems such as Autopilot for their possible dangers. And so far, the incoming NHTSA senior safety adviser has not shared if she would be leaving her post at the Swedish LIDAR company, especially since she would soon be advising a US safety agency on driver-assist systems that adopt both LIDAR and non-LIDAR solutions.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Cummings’ criticism of Tesla and its Autopilot and FSD programs seems to stem from the fact that the company’s vehicles lack of equipment such as the LIDAR sensors provided by Veoneer. In an appearance at The Robot Brains Podcast earlier this year, the Duke University professor remarked that she is “basically an albatross around Elon’s and Tesla’s neck” and that “Where (she’s) going after is his (Elon Musk’s) desire to drop radar off of his cars and now go to vision-only.”
Dr. Cummings further noted that “There’s no vision research out there which doesn’t think that’s crazy and is gonna kill someone.” In a 2019 tweet, the incoming NHTSA safety official also noted that the NHTSA should require Tesla to disable Autopilot, since it “easily causes mode confusion.” This was a similar take from her post in 2018 when she noted that Elon Musk’s Tesla is the only “killer robot” present today.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has noted on Twitter that the Biden administration’s appointment of Dr. Cummings as a senior safety official for the NHTSA is quite “odd,” and in a later post, Musk also observed that “Objectively, her track record is extremely biased against Tesla.” In response to Musk’s post, the incoming senior safety official for the NHTSA noted that she was “happy to sit down and talk with you (Musk) anytime.” Hopefully, such a discussion could really happen with as little bias from both sides as possible, and with absolutely zero punches being thrown at the Tesla CEO.
The NHTSA’s appears to have its eye on Tesla recently. Earlier this month alone, and as the agency’s probe on several Autopilot crashes on stationary emergency vehicles continued, the NHTSA asked Tesla to explain why it rolled out a safety improvement to Autopilot through an over-the-air software update without issuing a recall.
This was quite an interesting question from the NHTSA, seeing as the Autopilot update was done as proactive measure that would allow Teslas to operate in a safer manner on the road, not as a response to a defect. This was despite Tesla accounting for only nine crash injuries with first responder vehicles in the past 12 months, a small fraction of the 8,000 injuries that were reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) involving a stationary emergency vehicle in the United States in a year.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
