News
Tesla’s snub from White House EV event: the Pros and Cons
As the United States government continues its monumental push of domestic automakers to transition to electrification, President Joe Biden and fellow White House staff have invited companies like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis to Washington to discuss what steps can be taken at the federal level to reach lofty EV delivery goals. However, perhaps the Biden Administration’s biggest ally, Tesla, wasn’t there because it was not extended an invitation. While CEO Elon Musk called the no-invite “odd,” there are potentially some bright spots in the situation, although the question of whether they outweigh the negatives is up to the reader to decide.
White House Electrification Event for U.S. Automakers
A relatively groundbreaking announcement that comes on the heels of President Biden’s request for legacy automakers to commit to a 40% electrified fleet by 2030, the companies agreed to a loftier but more satisfying figure of 50%. Now that half of all legacy automaker vehicles sold in 2030 will be electric, the big question is, how will it work? How will this plan be carried out?
Effectively, a game plan is likely being discussed among the White House staff and the leaders of the automakers who were invited to the event. With each company outlining specific goals through various announcements over the past several years, it is now time for action. The talking is done, a plan needs to be laid out and completed. The thing about electrification is that it is vastly different from building an ICE car, which each of these companies has long, storied, and successful histories of doing. Building an electric vehicle is a completely different project, and it goes much further than putting some electric motors and batteries in a pack and calling it an EV. There needs to be efficient and effective software, the batteries need to have a specific cell chemistry to operate for a long time, charging infrastructures need to be established, along with many other factors.
Tesla’s absence from White House EV event sidestepped in Pete Buttigieg interview
The overall issue that many of these companies have when transitioning to electrification is finding out how to make EVs operational. Far too many times, we have heard about incredible EVs that will come to the market in a few years, they are going to be amazing and effective, and they will show Tesla who is boss. But every time this has happened, these cars fall short of their mark.
The Cons: Why Tesla should be at the White House, no questions asked
Tesla has the experience to help these automakers navigate through extremely difficult times, which are likely to come based on many of these companies’ current situations with developing electric powertrains. Creating one or two vehicles and selling between thirty and fifty thousand of them definitely helps the cause. However, keeping these delivery rates and simply putting a few new bells and whistles in the interior doesn’t make it a new car. Consumers want new technology, new looks, new aesthetics. This means cars with more range, more features, and sleeker, more modern designs.
The goal should be for these automakers to develop a plan by 2030, about eight and a half years, to have four to five different electrified models on the road by that year. Rolling out that many new models while simultaneously engineering and building effective electric powertrains is extremely difficult. Many companies may find that the road to this goal is not necessarily as simple as they thought.
Ask Tesla about it.
After unveiling the Model 3, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk entered the toughest few years of Tesla’s short life.
However, Tesla overcame all odds by delivering four electric models in just eight years: the Model S in 2012, the Model X in 2015, the Model 3 in 2017, and the Model Y in 2020.
Ideally, Tesla would be the biggest advantage for all of these companies from a consultant standpoint. If Tesla’s goal really is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, it would have no issue helping car companies figure out where their shortcomings are. No technological advantages would need to be shared. Still, a roadmap of how Tesla navigated through the toughest portion of its existence by releasing popular, profitable, and effective EVs would undoubtedly help. Not to mention, these companies are much more financially stable than Tesla was while it was ramping up its production of vehicles. That would only help the cause as money really isn’t an issue.
Another negative comes from a perceptive standpoint, but it can’t be a good look for the Biden administration to go through with this event without having the industry leader there. It would be like having a tech event without Apple, an Olympic highlight reel without Phelps, a chef’s get-together without Gordon Ramsay. It just doesn’t make sense, and on top of it, it doesn’t necessarily show that the country’s leaders support Tesla’s efforts. After all, Joe Biden hasn’t uttered the word “Tesla” since he’s taken office.
The Pros: Why it might not be so bad after all
If the purpose of this event is to get automakers on board with electrification, then Tesla really would have no business being there. After all, the companies invited have pledged to have half of their vehicle deliveries be electric in 2030. Tesla already delivers only electric vehicles, and it has since day 1. Some could see it as the Straight A student going to tutoring; it’s really kind of pointless.
Additionally, it might be a good look for Tesla not to go to the event from a political standpoint. Currently, 52% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance. This is according to Rasmussen, which updates the poll daily.
Tesla also does not need any assistance federally, and it does not need any entity to tell it how to handle its business. This is something that Tesla should take pride in. The hard-working giants who have ruled the automotive industry for a century need guidance on continuing to move forward.
For Tesla, the answers came through its own hard work and its own want to change the world for the better.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below, or be sure to email me at joey@teslarati.com or on Twitter @KlenderJoey.
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
