News
Tesla on hold as Texas court debates Cybertruck factory impact on taxpayers
Texas county officials where Tesla is seriously considering a Cybertruck factory are still debating over an incentive package to help bring the electric carmaker to the Lone Star State.
After two nights of discussion on the pros and cons of the move, the Travis County Commissioners Court has again postponed a vote on the matter to a date next week; however, from the recent comments, it’s clear that while many local executives and business leaders are optimistic about the economic benefits of Tesla’s presence, they have concerns about taxpayers and worker benefits.
During the Court’s session on July 7th, itself a continuation of a discussion on the matter in the prior week, several community call-ins indicated a wariness towards large employers that may not have the local taxpayers and employees’ best interest at heart.
“We are enthusiastic about companies that would like to come and take advantage of our vibrant culture and economy. With regard to Tesla, we’d like to affirm they are welcome, and that as long as they are spending their own money they are welcome to come on their own terms. If, however, they want local taxpayers to help pay for their move, the county needs to hold Tesla accountable to the same standards that it holds itself accountable to. In particular…a livable minimum wage,” commented Michael Floyd, a leader within the All Saints’ Episcopal Church in central Texas.
Jessica Wolff, deputy policy director for Workers Defense Project added, “Tesla has said that they will provide 5,000 middle skilled jobs. Our community needs more transparency. We need specifics. What types of jobs? How many will be temporary vs. permanent? What are the starting wages and benefits each will receive?”
Notably, Tesla seems to have provided fairly specific wage and benefit information in a presentation considered by the Travis County Court on June 23rd this year. Tesla’s impact on the Reno, Nevada community surrounding Gigafactory 1 could also be a positive testament to the carmaker’s potential benefit to Texas.
Manuel Quinto-Pozos, representing the UAW and himself as an employment lawyer, agreed with Wolff’s comments and requested that Tesla expands on its concerns with previously discussed building standards. Jeremy Hendricks, representing local construction labor unions, also requested complete transparency in the onboarding process to ensure minimal pay and safety for workers. On a more negative note, caller Juan Bellman was completely opposed to any incentives being offered by the community. “I wanted to oppose Tesla receiving any economic development incentives,” he said bluntly. “As mentioned, I went to Travis High School and I know that my community does not need a multi-billion [dollar] company coming and receiving those taxes that I know the community needs more than them.”
The Court reconvened on July 8th where the call-in comments were more enthusiastic about the economic prospects from Tesla’s presence.
“I’m calling to urge you to approve this deal and bring Tesla to the region,” rallied executive director Ed Latson of Austin Regional Manufacturers Association (ARMA). “We think it’s an extraordinary opportunity, a political win, a cultural win, and an economic win that we have never seen. This court has the opportunity to bring hundreds of millions of dollars of economic impact to a region that has been neglected economically…[and]…impacted negatively by the current economic conditions and really give them skills and a pathway to the middle class.”
The incentives being discussed are property tax rebates worth around $15 million dollars over the course of ten years. In addition to economic incentives from Travis County, Tesla is pursuing a school tax abatement request with the Del Valle Independent School District which would save the company around $50 million over the same ten year time period. Their application package has been submitted and approved, but the District’s Board has yet to take a vote on the matter. Tesla’s decision on whether to make the Austin area its new home may hinge on gaining these tax approvals and community resistance may also explain CEO Elon Musk’s continued consideration of Tulsa, Oklahoma as an alternative location.
The Travis County Court again postponed a vote on the incentives after the July 8th session, the judge indicating that another discussion would be held on July 14th.
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
