News
President Joe Biden’s Tesla-void EV speech gave Ford too much credit [Opinion]
Earlier today, President Joe Biden spoke at Ford Motor Company’s Dearborn plant in Dearborn, Michigan, with intentions of delivering more details regarding his plans to expand the EV sector in the United States through a more broad charging infrastructure, freely unionized manufacturing jobs, and a heavily supportive dialogue that failed to include any details on companies that are pushing electrification forward, like Tesla. In my opinion, it showed that the President doesn’t have a broad understanding of electrification. While that’s okay, his position as President of the United States requires more comprehension on subjects that involve reducing emissions and increasing the number of EVs on the road, a direct factor in the reduction of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.
His speech gave Ford entirely too much credit, especially as the main essence was combining EV production with unionized jobs for U.S. workers.
In the speech, President Biden commended Ford for its extensive history of automotive legacy, something that nobody can deny. Ford has a rich history when it comes to cars, and some of its vehicles are still the best and most popular on the market. Two of the four vehicles I have owned have been Fords, the most recent being a 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. It was the best car I’ve ever had. My Dad has owned nothing but Fords for as long as I can remember.
President Biden was increasingly concerned about the number of jobs that could be offered to U.S. workers or whether American companies would have to depend on foreign countries to build and produce EVs. It simply wasn’t an option for the American economy, the President hinted. Ironically, his speech took place at a facility owned by a company that outsourced its first mass-market electric vehicle production to Mexico.
With Ford entering the EV sector with the Mustang Mach-E, it opened up a favorable introduction into the industry for the company that Henry Ford started in 1903. The vehicle is safe and was awarded an IIHS Top Safety Pick award, and has received favorable reviews from owners thus far. Despite minor issues early on related to software, the Mustang Mach-E undoubtedly has a bright future in the sector and will likely be one of the company’s most popular vehicles for the coming years. But it’s not going to throw Ford into EV superstardom, especially not with the U.S.-produced tune that Biden spoke highly of during his speech. The vehicle is actually built at the Cuautitlán Assembly Plant in Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico.
That’s not going to help the American economy, nor will it supply U.S. workers with union jobs that Biden talked so much about during his speech.
The issue is, Biden seemed to give Ford credit for things that they’re just not very well-versed with quite yet. President Biden mentioned during the speech that the United States was falling behind China in terms of EV tech and battery cell efficiency. “Right now, China is leading in this race. Make no bones about it. It’s a fact.” The problem is this just simply is not true.
An American company is winning this race. An American company is dominating this race. An American company is growing its employment force hand over fist on an annual basis. An American company had the most popular electric car in China last year.
It was Tesla.
The issue with this is that America is in the lead when it comes to EVs. It is in the lead when it comes to EV batteries, and employment isn’t an issue for the company that continues to dominate the electric vehicle sector as a whole. Tesla is the benchmark for all three of these subcategories: overall EV performance, EV battery tech, and employment.
Tesla’s electric vehicles are the leader of the industry. With performance and range ratings that sit well above any other vehicle on the market, there is no secret why the company continues to be held to such a high standard. Recent data compiled by the EV Sales Blog shows that Tesla was the most popular EV OEM through Q1 2021, leading the partnership between SAIC, GM, and Wuling by nearly 82,000 units. Tesla sold roughly 184,500 cars through Q1. SAIC-GM-Wuling sold 102,574.
Ford was 17th, with 17,891 units sold in Q1.
Credit: EV Sales Blog
In batteries, Tesla’s 2170 cells come from Panasonic in Nevada at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Sparks. It is currently developing the 4680 cell, which will provide more power, range and decrease production costs by a significant margin. Tesla is effectively on the verge of decreasing electric vehicle costs by a significant margin, and in a few years, it expects to build a $25,000 car that will reach price parity with gas-powered rivals. While Biden spoke highly of Ford’s Georgia-based battery production plans for the electric F-150, he didn’t mention Tesla’s production of the 2170 cells in Nevada, nor did he mention the massive project at Kato Road in Northern California, just a stone’s throw away from Tesla’s Fremont Factory. This building is where Tesla is developing the 4680 cells, and it is rumoredly a Top 10 capacity cell manufacturing facility in the world.
Tesla’s 4680 Kato Rd. facility has a top 10 capacity, and it’s not even close to finished
While Biden’s enthusiasm for electric vehicles seems to be evident, it appears that the President needs a crash course in the world of EVs. It is rather bothersome to hear our President give zero credit to the American EV powerhouse Tesla, and while I can understand that Tesla may be on the list of banned words during a speech at Ford factories, it is a scare tactic to state that it’s an absolute fact that China is kicking our butts in EV development.
Make no bones about it, President Biden. It’s a fact that Tesla is leading this race. It’s not a close one at the current time, either.
I would love to see Biden make his way to Northern California for a tour of the Fremont Factory, or even a talk with Elon Musk regarding what Tesla is doing for the planet in terms of EV production. As Tesla has taken a commanding lead in the sector, legacy automakers have been forced to oblige and adapt to the changing industry. It is no coincidence that when these companies talk about who they are gunning for, Tesla is atop the list.
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
