5
#000000
#FFFFFF
technology
'Stuck and Confused' Waymo Robotaxis Snarl San Francisco Traffic During Massive Blackout
"During a disaster... Waymos would be blocking evacuation routes. Hard to believe no one asked these questions, until you realize that good governance is suspended when billionaires knock on the door," said one observer.
Dec 21, 2025
A citywide Pacific Gas & Electric power outage Saturday in San Francisco paralyzed Waymo autonomous taxis, exacerbating traffic chaos and prompting a fleet-wide shutdown—and calls for more robust robotaxi regulation.
Around 130,000 San Francisco homes and businesses went dark due to an afternoon fire at a PG&E substation in the city's South of Market neighborhood. While most PG&E customers had their electricity restored by around 9:00 pm, more than 20,000 rate-payers remained without power on Sunday morning, according to the San Francisco Standard.
The blackout left traffic lights inoperable, rendering much of Waymo's fleet of around 300 robotaxis "stuck and confused," as one local resident put it, as cascading failures left groups of as many as half a dozen of the robotaxis immobile. In some cases, the stopped vehicles nearly caused collisions.
On a walk across San Francisco on Saturday night prior to the fleet grounding at around 7:00 pm, this reporter saw numerous Waymos stuck on streets or in intersections, while others seemed to surrender, pulling or even backing out of intersections and parking themselves where they could.
Bad look for Waymo. Lots of reports out of SF where the power outage caused its robotaxis to stop in traffic, causing jams.
On the other side, the Tesla robotaxi fleet (& personal FSD users) continued the service without hiccups.
Not clear if Waymo vehicles themselves are… pic.twitter.com/DexuAh0Bpt
— Jaan of the EVwire.com ⚡ (@TheEVuniverse) December 21, 2025
"There are a lot of unique road scenarios on the roads I can see being hard to anticipate and you just hope your software can manage it. 'What if we lose contact with all our cars due to a power outage' is something you should have a meeting and a plan about ahead of time," Fast Company digital editor Morgan Clendaniel—a self-described "big Waymo guy"—said Sunday on Bluesky.
Clendaniel called the blackout "a predictable scenario [Waymo] should have planned for, when clearly they had no plan, because 'they all just stop' is not a plan and is not viable for city roads in an emergency."
Waymo—which is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google—said it is "focused on keeping our riders safe and ensuring emergency personnel have the clear access they need to do their work.”
Oakland Observer founder and publisher Jaime Omar Yassin said on X, "as others have noted, during a disaster with a consequent power outage, Waymos would be blocking evacuation routes. Hard to believe no one asked these questions, until you realize that good governance is suspended when billionaires knock on the door."
"Waymo's problems are known to anyone paying attention," he added. "At a recent anti-[Department of Homeland Security] protest that occurred coincidentally not far from a Waymo depot, vehicles simply left [the] depot and jammed [the] street behind a police van far from [the] protest that wasn't blocking traffic."
Waymo came to dominate the San Francisco robotaxi market after the California Public Utilities Commission suspended the permit of leading competitor Cruise to operate driverless taxis over public safety concerns following an October 2023 incident in which a pedestrian was critically injured when a Cruise car dragged her 20 feet after she was struck by a human-driven vehicle. The CPUC accused Cruise of covering up the details of the accident.
Some California officials have called for more robust regulation of robotaxis like Waymo. But last year, a bill introduced by state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-15) that would have empowered county and municipal governments "to protect the public through local governance of autonomous vehicles" failed to pass after it was watered down amid pressure from industry lobbyists.
In San Francisco, progressive District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder said during a press conference last month after a Waymo ran over and killed a beloved Mission District bodega cat named KitKat that while Waymo "may treat our communities as laboratories and human beings and our animals as data points, we in the Mission do not."
Waymo claimed that KitKat "darted" under its car, but security camera video footage corroborated witness claims to Mission Local that the cat had been sitting in front of the vehicle for as long as eight seconds before it was crushed.
Fielder lamented that "the fate of autonomous vehicles has been decided behind closed doors in Sacramento, largely by politicians in the pocket of big tech and tech billionaires."
The first-term supervisor—San Francisco's title for city council members—is circulating a petition "calling on the California State Legislature and [Gov. Gavin Newsom] to give counties the right to vote on whether autonomous vehicles can operate in their areas."
"This would let local communities make decisions that reflect their needs and safety concerns, while also addressing state worries about intercity consistency," Fielder wrote.
Other local progressives pointed to the citywide blackout as more proof that PG&E—whose reputation has been battered by incidents like the 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people in Butte County and led to the company pleading guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter—should be publicly run, as progressive advocacy groups have urged for years.
The San Francisco power outage is absolutely unacceptable. There are still people & businesses in SF that don’t have power. I can’t imagine what this is like for the elderly & people with disabilities. PG&E should not be a private company.
[image or embed]
— Nadia Rahman 駱雯 (@nadiarahman.bsky.social) December 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM
"Sacramento and Palo Alto don’t have PG&E, they have public power," progressive Democratic congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti said Sunday on X. "They pay about half as much as us in utility bills and do not have weekend-long power outages. We could have that in San Francisco."
Keep Reading
Show Less
For People of Color, Citizenship Offers No Protection Against ICE’s Techno Terrorism
The only thing that definitively clears suspicion for ICE is biometric identification. The presumption is that people may lie, documents may be forged, but biometric scans are objective and certain. People are guilty until an algorithm proves them innocent.
Dec 20, 2025
On December 9, Mubashir, a Minneapolis man who has chosen to only disclose his first name, was wrongly arrested by Immigration and Custom Enforcement for the crime of stepping “outside as a Somali American.” During his lunch break, masked men tackled him onto the ground, dragged him across the road, choked, and restrained him. Mubashir insisted that he was a US citizen. He repeatedly offered to show the men his digital passport, as well as to provide his name and date of birth to prove his citizenship. The agents refused.
Instead, they forced him to undergo a facial recognition scan to prove his identity. After several failed attempts to scan his face, he was arrested and taken to a detainment center. Mubashir was held for several hours without medical assistance or water, until eventually he was given the opportunity to present his passport. He was released after being subjected to fingerprint scanning.
Mubashir’s case is horrifying, but it’s becoming a common occurrence in President Donald Trump’s America. In April, Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was arrested, detained. and threatened with deportation after “biometrics indicated he was not a citizen.” This, despite his insistence that he was a US-born citizen and offering his Real ID as proof. Lopez-Gomez was eventually released once his story gained national news coverage.
Another example: two ICE agents stopped Jesus Gutiérrez after he exited a Chicago gym. He didn’t have any identification on him, but he told officers he was a US citizen. Agents took a facial scan using the app Mobile Fortify to determine his legal status. While Gutiérrez wasn’t arrested, the experience left him traumatized.
Somehow, for the Trump administration, a voter ID is enough to prove one’s citizenship at the ballot box, but a Real ID is not enough proof if masked men randomly assault and question you about your legal status on the street.
In each of these cases, a person of color is stopped without probable cause or justification, forced to undergo biometric scans, and has their freedom left to the discretion of an algorithm.
These technologies function to silence those whose rights are being violated. Mubashir, Lopez-Gomez, and Gutiérrez all insisted that they were citizens—they all told the truth. However, for those agents, their words, even their state and federal documentation, were insufficient. Under ICE’s technologically driven terrorism, the only thing that definitively clears suspicion is biometric identification. The presumption is that people may lie, documents may be forged, but biometric scans are objective and certain. People are guilty until an algorithm proves them innocent.
However, biometric scanners are far from precision tools. Several of the problems with these technologies are spelled out in the Biometric Technology Report jointly submitted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). According to the report, factors such as “facial features, expressions, obstructions, exposure, and image quality” can all influence the results of biometric scanners. Moreover, a “key challenge” for facial recognition algorithms is that they are more likely to err “when comparing images of two people who look comparatively similar,” such as family members. These algorithms also “yield consistently higher false positive match rates when applied to racial minorities.” This is the algorithmic bias problem.
DHS, as a co-author of the report, is clearly aware of these problems. Yet, they still choose to prioritize these algorithms when confronting people they merely suspect of being undocumented—a feature that is impossible to tell simply by looking at a person.
This choice, however, is strategic. DHS and ICE are using these algorithms to help minimize their own responsibility. If Mubashir is arrested, it’s because the biometric scan was inconclusive. If Lopez-Gomez is detained, it’s because the algorithm says so. If Gutiérrez is released, it’s because the algorithm cleared him. The responsibility for the arrests, threats, and psychological harms these people experience has now been offshored onto an algorithm that cannot be held accountable.
After all, if the algorithm incorrectly identifies you as being undocumented, who do you appeal to? Even if the system is wrong, it’s now the voice of the accused against a voiceless algorithm. Unless an actual person is finally willing to listen to you, your words and documents won’t matter. Unless the press—an institution that is constantly under attack by the Trump administration—raises the alarm on your behalf, you may find yourself detained for weeks.
Even if someone speaks out after they’re released, DHS simply denies any wrongdoing. Despite more than 170 confirmed cases of US citizens being kidnapped by ICE agents, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem still claims that “we have never once detained or deported an American citizen. We have not held them or charged them. When we find their identity, then that is when they are released.”
What’s interesting here is this notion that “their identity” must be found, as if it’s some grand mystery that requires an entire array of surveillance and identification technologies. As if this problem hasn’t already been solved by the invention of identification documents. Somehow, for the Trump administration, a voter ID is enough to prove one’s citizenship at the ballot box, but a Real ID is not enough proof if masked men randomly assault and question you about your legal status on the street.
DHS claims that biometrics “help enable operational missions, both to support national security and public safety, and deliver benefits and services with greater efficiency and accuracy.” The reality is that these technologies widen the scope of who is vulnerable to ICE’s secret police. So long as the algorithm legitimizes the agent’s racial profiling, anyone can become a legitimate target of state violence. This violence has already been judicially legitimized by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s absurd ruling that immigration agents can deliberately target people on the basis of race, language, employment, or location.
The threat of biometric and surveillance technologies is only growing larger. DHS is still heavily investing in more invasive technologies that target undocumented immigrants and citizens alike. This will be a different struggle, but there are things we can do right now. First, we need to support independent news organizations that work to keep the public informed. The extent to which we know about many of these technologies is due entirely to the incredible work being done by journalists.
Second, we need to build tools and networks to support each other. This includes developing our own technologies to warn people about ICE raids, such as the website “People over Papers” and the “ICEBlock” app. Recording and posting pictures of ICE’s cruelty to popular social media sites is also incredibly important. The people who recorded Mubashir’s illegal arrest helped his story become national news.
Third, we need to put more pressure on Democrats to curb this violence. Democratic candidates running in 2026 are already integrating calls to “Abolish ICE” into their platforms. There is also movement at the state and federal level to stop ICE kidnappings. This includes bills like California’s SB 805 and SB 627 and Illinois’ HB1312, as well as HR 4456 and HR 4843. Even the recent House Homeland Security Committee saw Democrats holding Noem responsible for ICE’s abuses. These are positive steps, but more work is still needed.
While the road will be daunting, together, we can keep each other safe.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Does Swarm of Lobbyists at Governors Summit Help Explain Democrats' Silence on Trump AI Order?
"Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats, but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it," said one observer.
Dec 12, 2025
Polls show that a majority of US voters—and especially Democrats—want more robust guardrails on artificial intelligence, but Democratic governors' silence on President Donald Trump's directive banning states from regulating AI has some observers asking if lobbying by the powerful industry is to blame.
Sludge's David Moore and Donald Shaw reported Friday that tech titans including OpenAI and Meta last week sent a small army of lobbyists to meet with attendees of the Democratic Governors Association’s annual meeting, held this year at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
According to the report, lobbyists and governors—some of whom "are teasing White House bids in 2028 or rumored to be in the mix"—gathered for a closed-door meeting. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore were among those who reportedly met with the lobbyists.
Trump signed an executive order trying to prevent states from regulating AI and following through on the safety laws they enacted, but there was little public pushback from Democratic governors.AI lobbyists descended on the DGA winter meeting last weekend in Phoenix, per a list we obtained:
[image or embed]
— David Moore (@davidrussellmoore.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 11:15 AM
The meeting preceded Trump's Thursday signing of an executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate rapidly evolving AI technology. The order directs the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to sue states that enact “onerous and excessive" AI regulation. The edict also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations that the Trump administration finds objectionable.
Democratic governors have been relatively muted on the order, especially given the overwhelming support for regulation of AI—which many experts say poses threats to humanity that may equal or outweigh its benefits—across the political spectrum.
As Moore and Shaw wrote:
While Democratic governors were silent, their Republican counterparts have been loudly arguing for months against the federal government preempting state AI policies. In June, 17 Republican governors sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune [R-SD] and House Speaker Mike Johnson [R-La.] warning them against preempting their states’ protections on AI use. Over the past couple months, a trio of Republican governors—Spencer Cox (Utah), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.)—continued to make known their opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order.
Newsom, who many observers believe is eyeing a 2028 White House run, especially disappointed proponents of AI safeguards last year when he vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest AI safety regulations.
It's not just Democratic governors—congressional Democrats have increasingly partnered with an industry expected to soon be worth trillions of dollars. Some Democrats, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, are personally invested in AI stocks. The AI industry also made record contributions to political campaigns during the 2024 cycle.
Other Democrats, including some who may have their sights set on higher office—notably Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—advocate stronger guardrails on AI development.
The public is worried about AI. Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it. www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Jeet Heer (@jeetheer.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 7:24 AM
"Voters want the party to get tough on the industry. But Democratic leaders are following the money instead," Jeet Heer, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, wrote Friday.
Citing voters' desire for stronger regulation, Heer argued that "Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to use the AI backlash for wedge politics," adding that "it's a way to win back working-class voters who are already disillusioned with the GOP and Trump."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular