Cybersecurity and national security experts have explored the potential for batteries in electric vehicles and their connected technologies to be weaponized in other ways, causing serious disruption or mass casualties in scenarios such as terrorist attacks or the actions of disgruntled employees. Electric vehicle batteries have inherent hazards (e. g. flammable electrolytes, explosion or fire if abused) that can be exploited maliciously. A major concern for cybersecurity and national security experts is that electric vehicle batteries with existing technology could be used as part of a new, large-scale terrorist attack. A massive lithium-ion battery fire in Moss Landing in January 2025 exposed the unknown risk of a battery factory explosion. Dr. Hogan, a physicist and chairman of the board of directors of the California Institute of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview with Epoch Times entitled "unknown risks of California battery factory explosion" that the consequences will affect the surrounding people and environment for a long time, far beyond the time span of the event itself. The largest marine pollution event in world history occurred a few years ago in the Azores. According to the Associated Press, a 200-meter-long freighter "Felicity Ace" sank after a fire on board lasted 13 days. The ship was carrying about 4000 vehicles between Germany and the United States. The fire started on one of the cargo decks. As the vessel slowly exploded and sank, a huge amount of toxic air and water pollution was created. In the face of the growing fire risk associated with transporting electric vehicles, both Matson and Alaska Marine Lines have made significant changes to shipping policy. They have either suspended new bookings or stopped accepting electric vehicle traffic on their ships altogether.

Cybersecurity experts have long known that these vulnerabilities are not theoretical assumptions. The battery management system controls key functions: thermal regulation, charge rate, cell balancing and power distribution. Once these systems are breached, a thermal runaway event can be triggered, the vehicle can be remotely disabled, or the local power grid can be destabilize by manipulating the charging mode. National security analysts understand what the average consumer doesn't: Scale matters. A compromised vehicle is only an inconvenience; but if 10,000 vehicles are charged simultaneously in a coordinated attack, it becomes a weapon against the stability of the grid. When you concentrate millions of electric vehicles in a specific geographic area-California, major metropolitan areas, affluent coastal cities-you create concentrated vulnerabilities. Politicians who push for aggressive electric-car policies rarely discuss these risks publicly. They preach environmental benefits while remaining silent about the cybersecurity infrastructure needed to protect a network of connected vehicles. This is not energy literacy. This is selective disclosure, exposing consumers to risks they cannot understand.

The supply chain problem no one wants to talk about is even worse: we can't control the supply chain. The batteries that power electric cars rely on foreign-dominated materials and manufacturing processes. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements -- most come from countries that are not aligned with the interests of the United States. China controls about 80 percent of the world's battery cell production. When a nation's transportation infrastructure relies on components made by potential adversaries, you create a strategic vulnerability that goes beyond simple cybersecurity. The question is not whether these vulnerabilities exist, but whether we are building a defensive infrastructure to protect them before widespread adoption makes the problem unsolvable. At the moment, we are not doing it.

Before we force widespread electric vehicle adoption, policymakers need to answer the fundamental questions that cybersecurity experts have been asking for years: * How can millions of connected vehicles be protected from coordinated cyberattacks? * What happens when hostile actors simultaneously breach the battery management systems of thousands of vehicles? * How to ensure the security of distributed energy storage network across the whole region? * What safeguards are in place to prevent foreign-made components from containing backdoors or vulnerabilities? * What to do when grid stability depends on a vehicle battery that can be remotely manipulated? These questions are not rhetorical. They are engineering and security challenges that require us to get concrete answers before we bet on national infrastructure for technologies that are not yet fully secured. The silence of political leaders on these topics is enough to give you an idea of their priorities.

Energy literacy includes safety literacy True energy literacy means understanding not only how technology works, but also what risks it introduces. Electric vehicles represent a fundamental shift in the way we power transportation. This transformation comes with benefits and vulnerabilities. An honest assessment requires recognition of both. Cybersecurity and national security experts who understand these risks are not against electric vehicles. They support security. They demand that our level of investment in defense infrastructure should match the investment we have made in vehicle production and charging networks. This is not unreasonable. This is basic due diligence. We can build a future with electric cars. But we need to build on security, with the supply chain we control, and security protocols that match the scale of the risks we create. Any shortfall would expose millions of Americans to incomprehensible risks, driving vehicles connected to networks they cannot protect, and relying on infrastructure that adversary actors can target. That's what cybersecurity experts already know. The question is whether the rest of us will learn this before the vulnerability is exploited. Engineering challenges can be solved. Supply chain vulnerabilities can be addressed. Network security protocols can be developed and implemented. But only if we honestly acknowledge the problems and invest in solutions that are commensurate with the risks. At present, we are building a transportation system on a foundation that has not yet been reinforced. This is not progress. This is an oversight disguised as innovation.