Electric Vehicles as a Weapon: Understanding the Emerging Threat in the Era of Electrified Mobility

Author:
Pedram Hesam, PhD, PSP
Chief Technical Officer at PNH
Counterterrorism Engineering SME
Email: pedram@pnhsec.com

Electric vehicles (EVs) are reshaping modern transportation but their advanced capabilities and evolving societal symbolism have also introduced new asymmetric threats. The potential for EVs to be weaponized through ramming attacks, arson, or use as Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) has grown dramatically. Recent political reforms and high-profile appointments have intensified public backlash, with some instances escalating into the misuse of EVs for ideological or retaliatory acts.

Security agencies have noted a concerning rise in incidents where EVs have been used as tools for violence. With increased mass, rapid acceleration, and low acoustic signatures, EVs pose unique risks in attack scenarios. This shifting threat landscape necessitates urgent updates to protective design standards and risk assessment models globally.

Federal restructuring initiatives led by a prominent tech executive have recently triggered public unrest. As demonstrations intensified, EVs linked to these initiatives became symbolic targets.

Several incidents have involved EVs used in attacks or vandalism. On New Year’s Day 2025, a rented electric pickup was used in a mass-casualty ramming attack in a U.S. city. Investigators concluded the vehicle was chosen for its weight, acceleration, and quietness.

This intersection of socio-political volatility and advanced vehicle performance highlights the urgent need to revise threat frameworks. Systems designed for Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles must evolve to account for the offensive potential of modern EVs.

EVs present a distinct set of security challenges that must be addressed within the disciplines of protective design and counterterrorism engineering. Unlike ICE vehicles, modern EVs exhibit operational characteristics that can significantly enhance their potential as offensive instruments in hostile scenarios.

One of the most critical concerns is the increased mass and momentum of full-size electric pickups and sport utility vehicles. Due to the substantial weight of battery packs and reinforced chassis components, these vehicles often exceed the mass of their gasoline-powered counterparts. The resultant increase in kinetic energy not only amplifies the destructive potential in ramming attacks but also allows such vehicles to breach physical barriers more effectively, thereby undermining the effectiveness of existing perimeter defense solutions.

Equally concerning is the rapid acceleration capability of modern EVs. High-performance electric drivetrains enable many consumer vehicles to achieve speeds of 60 miles per hour in under four seconds. This acceleration profile reduces the effective response time for mitigation systems and poses a particular threat in environments with constrained standoff distances. As mentioned above, the 2025 New Year’s Day incident, in which an electric pickup was used to execute a high-speed attack in an urban setting, exemplifies the lethality that can be achieved through this characteristic.

The low acoustic signature of EVs further complicates detection and response efforts. At lower speeds, EVs operate with minimal noise, rendering auditory warning systems largely ineffective. In populated or high-traffic areas, this stealth-like quality can delay recognition of an imminent threat, thereby narrowing the window available for intervention. To counteract this vulnerability, protective systems must increasingly depend on visual, thermal, or radar-based sensors for early threat identification.

Finally, EVs introduce substantial post-crash hazards due to their reliance on high-energy lithium-ion batteries. In the event of a collision, mechanical damage to the battery pack can initiate thermal runaway, a chain reaction that generates intense heat, fire, and the emission of toxic gases. Such events are notoriously difficult to control and extinguish, especially in the context of arson or VBIED scenarios. These thermal and chemical risks necessitate the development of specialized response protocols and infrastructure tailored to EV-related incidents.

Considering these factors, it is imperative that security engineering frameworks evolve to account for the unique threat dimensions introduced by electric vehicles. A multidisciplinary approach incorporating impact modeling, advanced detection technologies, and emergency response innovations will be essential to mitigate the evolving risks posed by electrified mobility platforms.

Most global crash and anti-ram standards were developed before EVs became widespread. While many EVs fit within existing parameters, key attributes like acceleration and thermal risks remain underrepresented.

While these standards address mass (i.e., impact energy) and penetration, few account for the unique operational traits of EVs. Enhanced standoff modeling, revised weight classes, and battery hazard protocols are essential complements to existing regimes.

To address the evolving risk profile of EVs, a series of focused mitigation strategies are recommended.

First, vehicle classification systems must be updated to reflect the performance characteristics of modern EVs rather than relying solely on legacy labels such as “passenger car”, “truck”, or “SUV”. Electric platforms frequently transcend these conventional categories in both mass and dynamic performance. Classification schemes should instead emphasize key operational parameters—such as curb weight, acceleration potential, and energy storage capacity to better align with their actual threat potential.

Second, acceleration modeling must become a standard component of protective design analyses. Many EVs can achieve dangerous velocities over short distances due to high torque availability from a standstill. This capability diminishes the effectiveness of traditional standoff distances and entry barriers, particularly in constrained urban environments or near high-value assets. Security layouts must be recalibrated to account for these rapid approach dynamics in both simulation models and real-world design.

Third, reliance on auditory cues for early threat detection is no longer sufficient. The quiet operation of EVs at low speeds severely limits the effectiveness of traditional sound-based alerts. To enhance situational awareness, facilities must incorporate advanced detection technologies including visual analytics, infrared imaging, and radar systems. These platforms provide earlier and more reliable identification of approaching threats, thereby improving response efficacy.

Fourth, the unique fire hazards associated with high-energy EV battery systems necessitate specialized response infrastructure. Facilities considered at risk such as government buildings, pedestrian-dense areas, and critical infrastructure should be equipped with tools capable of managing lithium-ion battery fires. This includes suppression agents effective against thermal runaway, containment solutions for toxic vapors, and dedicated fire response protocols tailored to post-impact energy storage incidents.

Finally, the evolving multifunctionality of EVs requires security professionals to consider complex, multi-vector threat scenarios. As EVs become increasingly autonomous and networked, their potential roles in attacks may extend beyond simple ramming events to include coordinated swarm tactics, explosive delivery, and cyber-physical operations. Protective frameworks must evolve to consider these compounded risks and incorporate strategies for layered defense against both physical and digital exploitation.

By adopting these risk-informed strategies, engineers and security professionals can proactively adapt protective systems to the unique challenges posed by electric vehicles, thereby safeguarding assets in an era of rapidly advancing mobility technology.

The growing integration of EVs into transportation ecosystems necessitates a fundamental reassessment of existing security frameworks. Originally designed around the characteristics and limitations of ICE vehicles, current protective strategies may no longer offer adequate safeguards against the distinct vulnerabilities introduced by electrified mobility. A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach is required to address the evolving threat landscape posed by EVs.

One of the most pressing areas for reassessment involves cybersecurity. Modern EVs are deeply integrated with digital infrastructure, relying on over-the-air software updates, onboard sensors, and remote access interfaces to enable functionality and convenience. These capabilities, while beneficial from a performance and user experience standpoint, introduce exploitable entry points for malicious actors. Cyberattacks targeting vehicle control systems, battery management units, or navigation platforms could result in operational disruption or, in extreme cases, vehicular weaponization. International regulatory frameworks such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation No. 155 and guidance from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are actively addressing these concerns by mandating secure vehicle architecture and cybersecurity management systems.

Another critical vulnerability lies in EV charging infrastructure. As public and private networks of charging stations expand, their exposure to physical and cyber threats increases. If left unsecured, these nodes can serve as vectors for both localized attacks—such as service denial or physical sabotage—and broader disruptions to electrical grid stability. Recognizing this risk, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the European Union’s NIS2 Directive have formally classified EV charging networks as critical infrastructure, thereby subjecting them to enhanced security oversight and resilience standards.

The globalized and technologically complex nature of EV manufacturing also introduces concerns regarding supply chain integrity. EV systems depend on a multitude of components sourced from diverse international suppliers, including sensors, semiconductors, battery modules, and telematics devices. Without rigorous vetting and quality assurance protocols, these supply chains remain susceptible to foreign interference, embedded malicious hardware, or unintentional vulnerabilities. Effective mitigation strategies must include end-to-end visibility across the supply chain and stringent compliance mechanisms to verify the trustworthiness of each component.

Finally, standardization and regulatory compliance must evolve in parallel with the technological advancements within the EV sector. Legacy standards focused on ICE vehicles are insufficient to govern the new operational paradigms introduced by electrification. Organizations such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and international regulatory bodies are actively working to update safety, performance, and interoperability guidelines that reflect the unique risk vectors associated with EVs. These efforts are essential to ensure coherent and enforceable best practices across the global market.

The rise of EVs as both a technological advancement and a symbolic flashpoint has made them susceptible to misuse. From their mass and speed to cyber vulnerabilities and fire risks, EVs represent a new class of threat. Security frameworks must evolve accordingly. By incorporating acceleration modeling, updating classifications, expanding detection tools, and preparing for fire and cyber events, organizations can better prepare for the next generation of vehicular threats.

As one agency brief aptly concluded: “Security must evolve at the pace of technology – if not faster.”