This Act mandates the Department of Homeland Security to report on current and emerging threats, vulnerabilities, and countermeasures related to vehicular terrorism, including new technologies.
Carlos Gimenez
Representative
FL-28
This Act mandates that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) submit a comprehensive report detailing current and emerging threats from vehicular terrorism. The report must outline DHS strategies for prevention, vulnerability assessments of critical locations, and coordination efforts with law enforcement and private industry. Furthermore, it requires recommendations for new technologies to mitigate these threats while ensuring the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
| Party | Total Votes | Yes | No | Did Not Vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Republican | 219 | 193 | 15 | 11 |
Democrat | 214 | 207 | 0 | 7 |
This proposed legislation, titled the Department of Homeland Security Vehicular Terrorism Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2025, isn't about enacting new laws right now—it’s about homework. Specifically, it mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) produce a massive, comprehensive report within 180 days detailing exactly how the U.S. plans to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism using vehicles.
What makes this report crucial is its focus on emerging threats. We all know about the risk of a truck being used as a weapon, but the bill specifically calls out the danger posed by new automotive technologies like autonomous vehicles, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), and ride-sharing services. For anyone working in tech or driving a newer car, this means the government is officially preparing for scenarios where malicious actors could hack or misuse your connected vehicle. The report must analyze cybersecurity risks to automotive software and how these systems could be weaponized.
The bill requires DHS to conduct a thorough Vulnerability Review, identifying high-risk locations. This isn't just about airports and power plants anymore; it also targets "soft targets and crowded spaces." This includes mass gatherings, concerts, and—notably—public demonstrations, political rallies, and places of worship (Section 3). For the average person, this means the places you gather—whether for fun, faith, or political speech—could see an increase in security measures like physical barriers (bollards) and potentially, more surveillance technology like geofencing and AI-driven threat detection systems.
This is where the rubber meets the road for everyday citizens. The report must summarize DHS’s actions, including the use of geofencing, surveillance systems, and other technologies to monitor and restrict vehicle access. Even more critically, the report must include recommendations for new technology, specifically mentioning vehicle immobilization systems and remote disablement technologies (Section 3). If you own a connected car, this means the government is actively researching ways to remotely stop your vehicle if it’s deemed a threat. This kind of power centralizes control over personal property and movement, which is why the bill thankfully requires a section describing engagement with privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties stakeholders to ensure these countermeasures respect individual rights.
If you run a small business in a downtown area or simply attend public events, you might see more physical security infrastructure being installed. If you’re a developer or work in the automotive industry, expect increasing federal scrutiny and likely new security standards for connected vehicles. The report’s findings will set the stage for future regulations and the deployment of technology that could affect everything from how traffic is managed in city centers to the security features installed in the next car you buy. While the security benefits are clear—addressing a real, deadly threat—the potential for expanded surveillance and the government’s ability to remotely control vehicles means we need to pay close attention to the unclassified summary when it drops, ensuring the necessary security doesn't come at the expense of our civil liberties.