News
Ford seemingly denies Tesla’s existence as it supports CA’s zero-emissions initiative
A recent press conference from California Governor Gavin Newsom proved to be quite interesting for the Tesla and electric car community. During his speech, where he praised California’s place as the leader in the United States’ electric vehicle movement, the governor dubbed veteran automaker Ford as the leader in the EV sector. Even more interestingly, the CA governor seemed almost intent to leave Tesla out when he was speaking about the state’s EV milestones.
The governor’s speech was shared on Twitter by Ford COO Jim Farley, who noted that the veteran carmaker is the only American automaker to stand behind California in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This statement promptly raised some eyebrows and sarcastic jokes from the online EV community, considering that Tesla, an all-American automaker, has been mass-producing zero-emissions cars in the state for years. The fact that there was a Model 3 parked beside a Ford Mustang Mach-E during the speech was just icing on the cake.
“I want to thank in particular a number of automobile manufacturers that get it and are starting to get it done, led by Bill Ford and Ford. They have been a leader in this space. They’re not a laggard, and they’re not willing to just suffer the fate of a future of dirtier air, dirtier water, and more climate disruption. They want to lead and they are leading with innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset that’s leading to more customer choice, that’s leading to new technological advancements, and allow them to be on the vanguard of leadership, not just in the United States as a manufacturer, but around the rest of the world,” the governor said.
As noted by tech YouTuber and EV advocate Jeremy Judkins, things get even more interesting when one looks at the governor’s statements before his comments on Ford’s EV leadership. Newsom highlighted that California has 34 manufactures of electric vehicles, and he also remarked that EVs represent the second-largest export of the state. The governor added that the market caps of the publicly-traded electric car makers in California stand at nearly half a trillion dollars.
“Currently today, the state has 34 manufacturers of electric vehicles. No state in America comes close. This state represents just shy of 50% of all the electric vehicle purchases in the United States of America. We have, by one estimate, close to three-quarters of a million electric vehicles in the State of California — 726,000 at last count— no state comes close. Our second-largest export, rather, in the State of California is electric vehicles.
“Those 34 manufacturers represent — those publicly traded manufacturers — represent close to one half a trillion dollars of market capitalization. Some $500 billion. This is an economic opportunity, the opportunity to transform our economy across sectors, the opportunity to accelerate innovation in the entrepreneurial spirit, the opportunity to bring more companies here into the State of California, creating more jobs,” Newsom said.
It should be noted that Tesla represents the lion’s share of the EV exports that the California governor was referring to. The company also represents the majority of the combined $500 billion market cap of the state’s electric car makers, considering that Tesla currently has a market cap of about $360 billion on its own. These figures, as well as the presence of a literal Tesla just a few feet away from Newsom’s podium, made the governor’s speech rather peculiar on its own.
Granted, Ford could probably justify its statements by claiming that Tesla is not a pure automaker, but a tech company per se. Still, the rather discrete denial of the electric car maker’s existence in an event about reducing greenhouse gas emissions is still quite strange nonetheless. That being said, Ford could not claim to be a purely American carmaker either, considering that some of the vehicles it sells in the country are produced in foreign territories. The Mustang Mach-E, for example, will be made in Ford’s Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico plant, making the vehicle not quite as “American” as its competitor, the Tesla Model Y, which is produced in California.
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
