Tesla is planning to build a massive solar cell factory in Texas that it expects to cost $10.1 billion, according to documents the company filed with the state.

Dubbed Project Crystal Sun, the site would sit just outside Houston in Fort Bend County, according to the documents.

In its pitch to state regulators, Tesla said if Texas rejected the project, it would “miss the opportunity to attract billions of dollars in investment, help create thousands of full-time jobs for its residents and become a hub for domestic solar cell manufacturing in the U.S.”

Tesla solar panel factory in Buffalo, New York, on Dec. 26, 2018. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

NEW TESLA SOLAR-POWERED CHARGING STATION OPENS

“Tesla is currently evaluating the feasibility of constructing its solar cell manufacturing facility at various locations across multiple U.S. states,” the company told the state comptroller’s office.

If built, the facility would create more than 9,700 permanent full-time jobs, as well as 1,147 temporary construction jobs, Tesla said.

Tesla estimated it would owe about $1.1 billion in local property taxes on the project over the next 37 years if it is not granted incentives.

A map showing where Tesla’s proposed solar panel factory would be built. (Tesla)

TESLA TOUTS 380,000 UNSUPERVISED ROBOTAXI MILES WITH ‘ZERO NOTABLE INCIDENTS’

Tesla plans to break ground on the factory this year and complete construction by 2028, with commercial operations expected to begin in 2029.

It’s not clear whether the factory’s solar panels will be produced for installations on the ground or in satellites. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk also runs SpaceX, which operates thousands of satellites in low-Earth orbit, all of them equipped with solar panels.

Elon Musk speaks during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 22, 2026. (Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Although Tesla’s filings did not reveal the expected output of the proposed solar factory, Musk has previously outlined a goal of setting up 100 gigawatts of domestic solar production.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said 100 gigawatts is roughly equal to 8% of the entire country’s power grid capacity.

OpenAI has confirmed that a viral series of screenshots purporting to show Chief Executive Sam Altman messaging a comedian on the dating app Grindr were entirely fabricated, a hoax that gained widespread attention online even as Altman faces an actual, ongoing federal lawsuit filed by his sister accusing him of childhood sexual abuse.

The hoax began August 5, when comedy musician Jake Schroeder posted what appeared to be Grindr screenshots on Instagram showing someone claiming to be Altman asking to meet up because he was “lonely and horny.” In the fabricated exchange, Schroeder appeared to reject the proposition, prompting the supposed Altman to respond by asking whether Schroeder had used ChatGPT to write his reply. The post quickly gained traction, collecting nearly 150,000 likes and prompting Schroeder to post a series of increasingly elaborate follow-ups, including fabricated correspondence purportedly from OpenAI’s legal team, claims of a Zoom meeting, and an alleged offer of $500 and a branded crewneck sweatshirt to make the situation go away. Schroeder later turned the bit into a song.

Despite the escalating and increasingly absurd details, a significant number of social media users believed the story was real, with one TikTok commenter asking why the situation wasn’t receiving more mainstream news coverage. An OpenAI spokesperson told Vulture the entire exchange was invented. “The posts are fake. We’ve had no interaction with this person,” the spokesperson said, confirming that Schroeder’s posts were part of an ongoing comedic bit built around fabricated direct messages rather than any real interaction with Altman.

The viral hoax unfolded against a starkly different backdrop: a genuine, high-stakes federal lawsuit in which Altman’s sister, Ann Altman, has accused him of sexually abusing her repeatedly between 1997 and 2006, beginning when she was 3 years old and he was 12. Altman has denied the allegations.

According to court filings, an informal discovery conference was held August 3 in the case, which remains active in federal court in Missouri. Ann Altman, now 30 and representing herself in the litigation, is scheduled to sit for a deposition August 17. That deposition follows a recent push by Altman’s attorneys to move the case forward more quickly. In filings submitted in July, Altman’s legal team accused Ann of failing to provide requested documents, schedule her deposition, or arrange an independent medical examination as requested during discovery. The filing stated that Altman “is eager to defend himself against the baseless claims” and argued that the delays were preventing him from mounting a full defense.

The lawsuit has already cleared one significant procedural hurdle. A judge previously determined that some of Ann Altman’s original claims had been filed outside the applicable statute of limitations, but permitted her to amend her complaint under a Missouri law governing claims of childhood sexual abuse, which allows plaintiffs to bring such claims until age 31. Ann Altman’s former attorneys later moved to withdraw from the case, citing what they described in court filings as “an unfortunate general breakdown in the attorney-client relationship,” leaving her to represent herself moving forward.

Altman has also filed a countersuit against his sister for defamation, seeking a symbolic $1 in damages along with a formal court ruling declaring her claims false. According to earlier reporting from Reuters, Ann Altman’s original complaint sought at least $75,000 in damages, plus punitive damages, for injuries she said included post-traumatic stress disorder, severe emotional distress, mental anguish and depression tied to the alleged abuse.

Sam Altman and other members of the Altman family have publicly and consistently denied Ann’s allegations. In a joint statement posted on social media shortly after the lawsuit was first filed, Altman, his mother and his two brothers called the claims “utterly untrue” and said the situation had caused “immense pain” to the entire family. The family statement also described difficulties they said they had faced caring for Ann amid her mental health challenges, saying she receives ongoing monthly financial support from the family that they expect to continue for the rest of her life, while asserting that she has continued to seek additional money from them.

Altman, 39, co-founded OpenAI and became one of the most prominent figures in the technology industry following the 2022 public release of ChatGPT, the company’s flagship artificial intelligence chatbot. His personal fortune has been estimated in the billions of dollars, drawn largely from a broad portfolio of venture capital investments, though he has said repeatedly that he holds no equity stake in OpenAI itself.

The contrast between the viral, entirely fictional Grindr hoax and the ongoing federal litigation has drawn attention from commentators tracking both stories, with the fabricated social media saga generating far more casual online engagement than the more serious, real legal proceedings unfolding in parallel. As the case moves toward Ann Altman’s scheduled deposition later this month, further developments in the litigation are expected in the weeks ahead.

If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault or abuse, help is available. Contact the RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673) or visit rainn.org for free, confidential support available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Donald Trump is being sued by two US media groups over a new Truth Social service that charges up to $100,000 a month for early access to his posts.

The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday in New York federal court by The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation.

The suit argues that selling priority access to the president’s messages raises serious concerns, external, describing it as “extraordinary, corrupt and unconstitutional”.

Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) said the lawsuit was brought by “left-wing activists” seeking to censor the president.

The BBC has approached the White House for comment. TMTG has previously dismissed concerns about the paid service.

The paid Truth Social service offers subscribers near-instant delivery of Trump’s posts, arriving seconds before they appear for the general public. The plaintiffs say those moments matter because Trump often uses the platform to announce major developments, such as during the Iran war, that can move financial markets.

They argue the setup gives an unfair advantage to those who can afford it, creating a system where market-sensitive information reaches paying clients first.

More than 10 firms now pay up to $100,000 a month for fast access to Truth Social posts.

Trump Media and Technology Group has said the product is aimed at businesses seeking faster data feeds and has dismissed concerns about how the information is used.

The company unveiled the service, called Truth API, in mid-July and said it would deliver posts from Trump and other high-profile accounts in milliseconds.

Trump is the most followed person on the platform, with about 13 million followers, ahead of his eldest son Donald Trump Jr., who has around 7.5 million.

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s, said Trump selling priority access to news he generates, for the benefit of a private company he controls, is “so blatantly corrupt and unconstitutional that it would have been hard to even fathom just a few years ago”.

And David Bralow, chief legal officer at The Intercept, said: “Nothing could be more antithetical to the free, independent press than the president charging for early access to his public announcements.”

The lawsuit described Truth API as a “scheme” and a money-making opportunity, noting that Trump holds the largest stake in TMTG through a revocable trust that owns about 41% of the company – a stake worth more than $1 billion. He is the trust’s sole beneficiary.

Responding to the lawsuit, a TMTG spokesperson said: “Information from President Trump is disseminated by countless platforms and news outlets, many of which offer subscription APIs.

“One of those channels is Truth Social, which was founded as an uncancellable haven for free speech after the President was unjustly de-platformed.

“Now, left-wing activists are trying to wrongfully weaponize the courts to censor him again and harm our shareholders.”

The spokesperson also accused the Freedom of the Press Foundation of violating Truth Social’s terms of service.

Tesla and SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk declared Wednesday that flying cars are on the way, reviving years of speculation that the automaker’s long-delayed Roadster sports car could eventually leave the ground.

Musk made the comment on X in response to a post lamenting that society had been promised flying cars but instead received “infinite superintelligence for everyone.” Musk replied with a simple, three-word declaration: “You will get flying cars.” He did not explicitly name Tesla or the Roadster in the post, though the comment immediately drew widespread attention given Musk’s yearslong history of hinting that the next-generation Roadster could incorporate hovering or short-flight capability.

The remark reignited discussion around one of Tesla’s most persistently delayed products. The second-generation Roadster was first announced in 2017 with an original production target of 2020, but the vehicle has missed numerous subsequent deadlines as Tesla prioritized other projects, including the Model 3, Cybertruck and, more recently, the Cybercab and Optimus robot. Musk has previously teased that the Roadster’s most ambitious feature would come through an optional package developed in partnership with SpaceX, featuring roughly 10 cold-gas thrusters embedded around the vehicle’s body. According to reporting on the concept, the thrusters are primarily designed to enhance acceleration, braking and cornering performance by generating additional downforce and lateral thrust, though Musk has suggested the same system could also allow the car to briefly hover or skim above the ground.

Tesla’s chief designer, Franz von Holzhausen, addressed the Roadster’s status during a recent appearance on “Jay Leno’s Garage,” telling Leno the long-delayed vehicle is coming “very soon” when pressed on its timeline, though he did not provide a specific date. Tesla’s official Roadster marketing materials continue to advertise conventional performance figures, including a 1.9-second zero-to-60 mph time, a top speed exceeding 250 mph and a 620-mile range, without referencing any sustained flight capability.

Musk’s history of commentary on flying cars has been notably mixed over the years. During a 2017 TED talk, he expressed skepticism about the concept, citing noise and safety concerns tied to a proliferation of airborne vehicles. “There is a challenge with flying cars in that they’ll be quite noisy. The wind force generated will be very high,” Musk said at the time, adding that the prospect of numerous flying cars overhead was “not an anxiety-reducing situation” for people below, comparing the worry to wondering whether a passing vehicle’s loose hubcap might come off and become a hazard.

Musk later clarified in 2015 that he was not fundamentally opposed to the concept, writing on X that he had simply emphasized the need to weigh both the benefits and drawbacks of flying vehicles. More recently, during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk struck a considerably more supportive tone, referencing a comment from investor and longtime associate Peter Thiel about society’s unmet expectations for flying cars. “My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars,” Musk said, adding that if Thiel wanted one, “we should be able to buy one.”

The Roadster’s unveiling has faced a long series of postponements. Musk indicated in March that the reveal would likely take place in late April, writing on X at the time that the unveiling would be “a banger next-level” event, though that date, like several before it, ultimately passed without a public demonstration. Tesla has continued filing trademark applications tied to the vehicle in recent months, and job postings for Roadster manufacturing engineers have suggested the project remains active internally even amid the repeated delays. Even once an official unveiling takes place, Tesla has indicated that mass production of the Roadster is unlikely to begin until sometime in 2027 or 2028, extending a production timeline that has already run seven to eight years behind the vehicle’s original schedule.

Wednesday’s comment arrives at a moment when Musk’s public attention has increasingly shifted toward artificial intelligence and computing infrastructure across his companies. Musk told SpaceX employees this week that the company’s AI-related revenue is on pace to surpass every other line of its business, including rockets and its Starlink satellite internet service, as soon as September. He has separately emphasized SpaceX’s growing compute infrastructure business and Tesla’s own investments in autonomous driving and robotics as central to both companies’ long-term strategies, even as the Roadster remains one of the more consumer-facing, headline-grabbing projects still awaiting its public debut.

For the tens of thousands of customers who placed $50,000 reservation deposits on the Roadster years ago against a promised price of roughly $250,000, Wednesday’s comment offered another small signal that the long-promised vehicle, and whatever flight or hovering capability it may ultimately include, remains part of Musk’s plans, even if the exact timeline for its arrival continues to shift. Whether the eventual unveiling delivers genuine flight capability or a more limited hovering demonstration remains to be seen, with Tesla yet to confirm a firm date for the reveal as of Wednesday.

Most event organisers don’t think much about crowd management until something nearly goes wrong: a bottleneck at a single exit, someone who’s had too much to drink pushing back against a steward, a queue backing up onto a public pavement while a passer-by complains.

None of that needs to happen if the provider running the event actually planned for it beforehand, rather than turning up on the day with enough bodies to cover the headcount.

That’s really the difference between a security company and a crowd management specialist. Supplying people in hi-vis is the easy part. Building a plan around the venue’s actual layout, the crowd it’s likely to attract, and where things tend to go wrong at that particular type of event takes a fair bit more thought, and it’s worth checking a provider’s done that thinking before you sign anything.

Look at Their Planning Process, Not Just the Numbers

A lot of quotes come back as a straightforward number: so many stewards, so many supervisors, one control room operator. What that number doesn’t tell you is whether anyone’s actually walked the site, checked exit capacity against the expected crowd, or thought about how people will move once the main act finishes and everyone heads for the door at once.

A provider worth using will want to see the venue before pricing it. If a quote lands without anyone asking for the layout, capacity figures, or timings, that’s usually a sign the “plan” is really just a headcount with a price attached.

Check Licensing and Experience With Your Type of Event

Every steward or security operative working a licensable event needs a valid SIA licence, and that’s the baseline rather than the differentiator. What actually separates providers is whether they’ve run your kind of event before. A team that’s spent years on corporate conferences approaches a crowd very differently to one that’s cut its teeth on festivals, and neither necessarily transfers cleanly to a sporting fixture with its own particular flashpoints around kick-off.

Asking for a couple of specific, comparable events a provider has covered tends to reveal more than a general client list. A provider whose only reference is a retail security contract is worth thinking twice about.

Confirm Communication Actually Works on the Day

The best-planned event still needs someone coordinating in real time. Radios, a functioning control point, and a clear chain of command between stewards, supervisors, and the organiser make the difference between a small issue getting managed quietly and the same issue escalating because nobody knew who to tell.

It’s worth asking exactly how communication works between the team on the ground and whoever’s making decisions. Some providers run this well. Others hand out radios and hope for the best, and that usually shows the moment something unplanned happens.

Ask How They Work With the Venue

A provider that’s worked your venue before, or is willing to liaise directly with venue management and, where needed, the local authority or police, tends to save a lot of friction closer to the event date. That relationship matters particularly for larger events where licensing conditions or safety certificates require direct input from the security provider, not secondhand through the organiser.

Making the Final Call

Price will always be part of the decision, but it shouldn’t be the deciding factor on its own. A cheaper quote that hasn’t accounted for exit capacity or communication planning can end up costing far more if something goes wrong on the day, both financially and to an organiser’s reputation.

Crowd Management Security built around proper preparation tends to look like this: site visits before pricing, staff matched to the type of event, and a control structure that actually gets used rather than sitting in a briefing pack nobody reads.

The right provider makes an event run so smoothly that nobody outside the security team notices they were there at all, which is usually the clearest sign the planning happened weeks before the doors opened, not on the day itself.