News
Tesla faces biggest challenge yet as oil industry fights to maintain its hold on US auto
Tesla might have overcome several notable hurdles this year, but the electric car maker is now facing what could very well be its biggest challenge yet in the United States. As the company hits its stride with the production of the Model 3 and as it prepares to ramp its energy business next year, a rather discreet movement is underway to ensure that America remains waist-deep in oil.
A recent expose published by The New York Times outlines an active campaign to roll back the country’s existing vehicle emissions rules. Earlier this year, the US government laid out a plan that aims to ease fuel efficiency standards in the country. The movement’s central point is simple — since America is so awash in oil, the country no longer needs to worry about energy conservation.
The publication’s investigation noted that the movement, which was supported by proposals in Congress and social media campaigns, is backed by some of the United States’ largest oil interests. Marathon Petroleum, the US’ largest refiner, as well as a policy network with ties to billionaire Charles G. Koch, contributed to help push the movement’s agenda. Overall, the creation of the proposal and its support from the oil industry is understandable, considering that the advent of electric vehicles threatens the bottom line of the industry. Less gas-thirsty cars on the road mean lower sales of gasoline. More pure electric vehicles on the road, such as Tesla’s electric cars, are an even bigger threat.
The US government’s initiative takes aim at the country’s emissions standards, which practically requires automakers to double the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by 2025. Under the government’s proposal, emissions standards would be frozen at 2020 levels. The NYT estimates that if the government’s planned rollback is implemented, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by more than the amount of gases put out by midsize countries such as Austria, Greece, or Bangladesh in one year.
Lawmakers and delegations across the United States have backed the pro-oil campaign, with several groups sending letters to the Transportation Department to express their support. The publication noted that these letters featured much of the same phrasing, particularly a line directly referencing the preferences of American car buyers. “With oil scarcity no longer a concern, historically low gas prices, increasingly ambitious CAFE requirements, it is important that NHTSA and EPA review the mandate to ensure that the US is protecting consumers from higher costs and still allowing for choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” one of the letters stated.
The oil-backed movement, though, is currently encountering some pushback from members of the government. Among these is Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, who expressed his criticism of the administration’s campaign. In a statement to the NYT, Carper noted that “oil interests are cynically trying to gin up support in Congress for the weakest possible standards to ensure that cars and SUVs have to rely on even more oil.” The senator added that “If this attempt is successful, the outcome will be a blow to the auto industry, consumers, and our environment.”
At the forefront of the resistance against the oil-backed campaign is California, home to Tesla’s headquarters and electric car factory. California pledged to stick to stricter emissions standards while maintaining an initiative to push the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. Thirteen states currently follow CA’s lead, representing about 35% of the United States’ nationwide car sales.
At the heart of the movement is the notion that American car buyers prefer large, gas-guzzling vehicles such as full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs over zero-emissions vehicles. This is a market barely touched by electric car makers today, with cars such as the Tesla Model X competing in the luxury SUV segment — a far smaller and notably higher-priced market than those populated by gas-powered best-sellers such as the Chevrolet Suburban. The same is true for the pickup truck market, which is home to the Ford F-150, the country’s best-selling vehicle. Serious all-electric pickup trucks such as Rivian’s R1T have been unveiled recently, but just like the Model X, the R1T is a luxury vehicle at its core.
Tesla has matured greatly this year, as the company overcame the Model 3’s production hell and as Elon Musk dealt with the repercussions of his online behavior. Considering the pro-oil movement stirring in the country, though, Tesla might need to take even greater responsibilities in the immediate future. Being a first mover in the electric car revolution, Tesla has the potential to take the lead in bringing compelling vehicles that can compete with gasoline-powered cars on both performance and price. The company is already accomplishing this with the Model 3, as proven by the electric sedan’s impressive sales figures over the past months. So far, though, Tesla is yet to release vehicles that can truly take on the country’s gas guzzlers at a similar price point.
This might change next year, as Tesla is expected to reveal the Model Y SUV. The Model Y is designed to be the SUV counterpart of the Model 3 — powerful, practical, and attainable by the everyman — and if Elon Musk’s recent statements are any indication, the vehicle’s unveiling could be just around the corner. Tesla could very well be targeting the mainstream, seven-seat SUV market with the Model Y, with Musk recently describing the vehicle as a “midsize SUV” during an appearance at the Recode Decode podcast. Musk has also indicated that Tesla might be releasing its pickup truck earlier than expected.
Tesla, though, is not capable of pushing the EV revolution alone. Thus, it is pertinent for EV startups such as Rivian and Bollinger Motors to step up to the challenge and perhaps accelerate the development and release of their electric vehicles. Legacy automakers that have committed to an electrified future, such as Porsche and Jaguar, must expedite the release of compelling zero-emissions cars as well. Porsche and Jaguar have already taken a notable step with the Taycan and the I-PACE, but far more steps need to be taken.
For its part, Tesla would best be served by a steadier hand in the coming quarters. With an aggressive campaign to keep the United States entrenched in oil ongoing, Tesla must lead in a manner that is quick, efficient, and steady. Thus, mistakes such as the over-automation of the Model 3 assembly line, as well as Elon Musk’s Twitter gaffes, should best be avoided. Tesla is already a fast-evolving company, having grown to a major automaker in all but 15 years. Considering the presence of the government’s oil-backed campaign, though, Tesla is at a point where it must evolve even faster than before.
For now, the US’ auto industry appears to be facing a crossroads. On the one hand, there are companies such as Tesla proving that electric cars such as the Model 3 are viable and competitive. On the other hand, there are groups lobbying to maintain the auto industry’s reliance on oil. If a recent public hearing in Colorado is any indication, though, it appears that support for sustainable transportation is very much present.
Last month, Americans for Prosperity representative Shari Shiffer-Krieger attended a public hearing about Colorado’s pending decision to follow California’s lead. Americans for Prosperity is among the oil industry’s supporters. In Iowa, the group joined the fight against an initiative that would make it easier for gas stations to install electric car charging stations, and in Illinois, the group discouraged state officials from considering subsidies for EVs. Speaking to Colorado’s regulators, Shiffer-Krieger argued that buyers in the rugged state preferred powerful SUVs over stricter emissions rules.
“Coloradans deserve much better,” she said.
Colorado’s regulators accommodated her, before allying themselves with 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
