Security experts concerned on potential harm of EV batteries

Cybersecurity and national security experts have explored how EV batteries and the connected technology of electric vehicles could potentially be weaponized in other ways to cause significant disruption or mass casualties in a terrorist attack scenario, or actions by a disgruntled employee.

EV batteries possess inherent hazards (flammable electrolytes, potential for explosions/fires under abuse) that could be exploited in malicious acts. The primary concern of cybersecurity and national security experts is the potential of EV batteries being used as a component in a novel, large-scale terrorist attack using existing technology.

The massive lithium-ion battery fire at Moss Landing in January 2025 exposed the unknown risks of battery plant explosions. Physicist and chairman of the Board of the California Arts and Sciences Institute, Dr. Hogan explained the consequences for the people and the land around them that outlast the event itself for a very long time in his Epoch Time interview "The Unknown Risks of Battery Plant Explosions in California".

The biggest maritime pollution event in world history happened a couple of years ago, in the Azores. The 200-meter-long cargo ship Felicity Ace sank after a fire that broke out on board, and lasted for 13 days, reports the news agency AP. The ship was transporting around 4,000 cars between Germany and the United States. The fire started on one of the cargo decks. Massive toxic air and water pollution occurred as the ship slowly exploded and sank.

Both Matson and Alaska Marine lines have made significant changes to the shipping policies in response to the increasing fire risks associated with transporting EVs. They have either suspended new bookings or completely stopped accepting EVs for transport aboard their vessels.

What cybersecurity experts already know

The vulnerabilities aren't theoretical. Battery management systems control critical functions: thermal regulation, charge rates, cell balancing, and power distribution. Compromise these systems, and you can trigger thermal runaway events, disable vehicles remotely, or manipulate charging patterns to destabilize local power grids.

National security analysts understand something the average consumer doesn't: scale matters.

A single compromised vehicle is an inconvenience. Ten thousand compromised vehicles charging simultaneously in a coordinated attack become a weapon against grid stability. When you concentrate millions of EVs in specific geographic areas-California, major metropolitan regions, wealthy coastal cities-you create concentrated points of vulnerability.

The same politicians pushing aggressive EV mandates rarely discuss these risks publicly. They promote the environmental benefits while remaining silent about the cybersecurity infrastructure required to protect interconnected vehicle networks.

This isn't energy literacy. This is selective disclosure that leaves consumers exposed to risks they don't understand.

The supply chain problem nobody wants to discuss

Here's what makes this worse: we don't control the supply chain. The batteries powering electric vehicles depend on materials and manufacturing processes dominated by foreign nations. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements-the majority come from countries that don't share American interests.

China controls approximately 80% of global battery cell production. When your national transportation infrastructure depends on components manufactured by potential adversaries, you've created a strategic vulnerability that goes beyond simple cybersecurity.

The question isn't whether these vulnerabilities exist. The question is whether we're building the defensive infrastructure to protect against them before widespread adoption makes the problem unsolvable. Right now, we're not.

The questions leaders should answer

Before we mandate widespread EV adoption, policymakers need to answer basic questions that cybersecurity experts have been asking for years:

• How do you protect millions of networked vehicles from coordinated cyberattacks?
• What happens when hostile actors compromise battery management systems across thousands of vehicles simultaneously?
• How do you secure a distributed energy storage network that spans entire regions?
• What safeguards prevent foreign-manufactured components from containing backdoors or vulnerabilities?
• How do you respond when grid stability depends on vehicle batteries that can be manipulated remotely?
• These aren't rhetorical questions. They're engineering and security challenges that require concrete answers before we bet our national infrastructure on technology we haven't fully secured.
• The silence from political leaders on these topics tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

Energy literacy includes security literacy

True energy literacy means understanding not just how technology works, but what risks it introduces.

Electric vehicles represent a fundamental shift in how we power transportation. That shift comes with benefits and vulnerabilities. Honest assessment requires acknowledging both.

The cybersecurity and national security experts who understand these risks aren't anti-EV. They're pro-security. They're asking for the same level of investment in defensive infrastructure that we're making in vehicle production and charging networks. That's not unreasonable. That's basic due diligence.

We can build a future with electric vehicles. But we need to build it on secure foundations, with supply chains we control, and security protocols that match the scale of the vulnerabilities we're creating.

Anything less leaves millions of Americans exposed to risks they don't understand, driving vehicles connected to networks they can't protect, dependent on infrastructure that hostile actors can target. That's the reality cybersecurity experts already know. The question is whether the rest of us will learn it before the vulnerabilities get exploited.

The engineering challenges are solvable. The supply chain vulnerabilities can be addressed. The cybersecurity protocols can be developed and implemented. But only if we acknowledge the problems honestly and invest in solutions proportional to the risks.

Right now, we're building a transportation system on foundations we haven't secured. That's not progress. That's negligence dressed up as innovation.