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.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
