At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)
I think that really underestimates how corruption would work. Tesla might make a show of a “government edition” software loadout, whether because they had to or even as theater to pretend they catered to government requirements when in actuality it’s largely the same but maybe with some branding.
In terms of pricing, I’m sure that any actually “bulletproof” vehicles cost plenty. Which is why even departments like the DHS have largely unarmored fleets. Tesla wouldn’t meet those standards, but the marketing might be sufficient to serve as a bullet point over the current non-armored vehicles they use.
I think we can count on the corruption and legal rights of other companies more than you think apparently. Tesla’s not the only car company. They certainly don’t have the same pull in the government as Ford and GMC and Dodge. Tesla is a brand new player who cannot be trusted to follow the rules and deactivate or unequip any sensors and components for tracking that the government would require (on trucks they have already manufactured for the civilian market - which would be the case because Tesla already has significant stock it can’t sell). The government don’t have the qualified personnel to upkeep these vehicles, and that’s assuming they even have a place to store a fleet of them that’s covered parking.
A government software load out is not going to be enough. When the government buys vehicles they specifically have them manufactured to a spec and that spec would have to involve the removal and or lack of installation of most of the sensors and capabilities the vehicle comes with stock. So they either have to buy them as is and modify them (which requires personnel with a specific set of training and qualifications), or they have to be manufactured to that spec at the Tesla factory (or retrofitted to remove the unwanted components).
DHS’s armored and unarmored fleets can be washed, can be parked in an uncovered lot, can be maintenanced by the personnel they already have. There’s way more to buying a fleet of vehicles than just the price tag for individual units.
I work on planes for a living including government planes when we get the contract for those and let me tell you, they differ quite a lot from conventional civilian planes even when the base plane is the same. Tesla doesn’t already have a contract, and even if they get one that money isn’t allocated to them in the budget. There’s plenty of other reasons why I think this is a BS take, but man even corruption has a shelf life. Trump may be out of office in a couple of years but the entire government won’t just up and retire with him. Their corruption will definitely conflict with his because these are career politicians and Trump is liable to die in office.
The skin is literally handgun resistant not anything more than that. And the windows aren’t bullet proof. They’d have to modify each door to take bulletproof glass. It’s prohibitively expensive on a vehicle that wasn’t engineered for that.
It’s the kind of thing I’ll believe when I see it and not a moment before.
Oh look: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/13/g-s1-48571/trump-administration-order-400-million-worth-of-armored-teslas
Did you read this article?
“Trump administration says it has no plans to fulfill $400 million ‘armored Tesla’ contract” - thats the headline.
And it doesn’t specify which kinda of vehicles, nor does it give anything other than a general timeline of interest.
Basically sounds like the government put out feelers to see which automakers were interested in potentially making armored vehicles for the government that were electric and only Tesla responded. And further, it doesn’t say why that plan was scrapped, but it literally also started in the Biden administration, not the Trump administration. There’s a lot of supposition in that article. I wouldn’t call this conclusive.
Note that it says article (and headline) were updated. At the time the article just had the State department document about 400m in armored Tesla. Then after initial backlash the document was amended to say armored electric vehicles. Then eventually the Trump administration declared this was not a thing and to the extent it was a thing, it was Biden.
Now it could be as they say, but it is also the Trump administration, that isn’t too big on the truth. So hard to say if this was a mishap about a misleading document, or something that was fired off without the broader approval of the PJ2025 folk and it getting killed after coming to light and needing a cover story as to why things didn’t get close to as blatantly corrupt as it sounded.
I am positive that the government does want armored vehicles. But like I said before and like it says in the article, this was a call out out to all automakers by the federal government during the Biden administration. This isn’t something Trump started when he got into office. Further, it’s important to note that the article claimed that Tesla was the only car manufacturer that showed an interest.
I’d like to see the document because it’s not clear from the article if this was a proposal or an order. And all of my reasoning for it not being a thing from before this article was posted still apply.