Waymo said remote assistance personnel do not directly drive its robotaxis and have never been used to move vehicles in U.S. on-road operations outside of training.

Waymo, the autonomous vehicle unit of Alphabet, has pushed back against congressional concerns over its use of remote assistance personnel, stating that such staff have never been used to drive its robotaxis during on-road operations in the United States.

In a letter to Democratic Senator Ed Markey, Waymo said it does not use remote driving or “tele-operations” to perform active driving tasks. The company clarified that its remote assistance agents provide advisory support when an automated vehicle (AV) encounters an ambiguous situation but do not directly control steering, braking, or acceleration.

Markey, along with Republican Representative Buddy Carter, has raised concerns about Waymo’s reliance on remote personnel, including some based in the Philippines. In a February 3 letter, Markey said the company had provided limited public information about its policies surrounding remote assistance operations and argued that Congress and the public deserve assurance that such practices will not endanger passengers, road users, or national security.

Carter separately called on the U.S. Department of Transportation to investigate Waymo’s use of remote vehicle operators located overseas, stating that it “raises serious and reasonable concerns about roadway safety, situational awareness, and national security.” The Transportation Department said it would respond to Carter’s request.

Markey has sent similar inquiries to other autonomous vehicle developers, including Tesla, Zoox—owned by Amazon—and Aurora, signaling broader congressional scrutiny of remote operations in the AV sector.

How Waymo’s Remote Assistance System Works

Waymo operates four remote assistance centers: two in the United States, located in Arizona and Michigan, and two in the Philippines. At any given time, approximately 70 remote assistance agents are supporting the fleet, the company said.

According to Waymo, these personnel are not continuously monitoring vehicles in anticipation of intervention. Instead, the automated driving system itself initiates contact when it encounters an unusual or ambiguous situation — for example, navigating complex construction zones or unclear road markings.

The remote assistant provides guidance or contextual information, but the vehicle’s onboard system remains the decision-making authority. Waymo said its robotaxis can reject remote suggestions if the system determines that the advice is not appropriate.

“This distinction is fundamental to our safety model, ensuring the vehicle’s onboard system remains the primary, real-time authority for safe operation,” the company wrote.

Waymo added that in rare circumstances, U.S.-based personnel could prompt a stopped autonomous vehicle to move forward at 2 mph (3 kph) for a short distance to exit a travel lane. However, it said such actions have not occurred outside of training environments. Only the company’s U.S.-based Event Response Team — which handles crashes and safety incidents — has the technical ability to move a stopped vehicle.

The company said the average response time between a request for assistance and delivery of advice is a matter of seconds. During that time, the vehicle’s computer continues to operate independently, processing environmental data and making driving decisions. In most instances, Waymo said, the vehicle resolves the situation on its own without requiring external input.

Broader Implications for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry

The debate highlights a sensitive issue in the commercialization of autonomous vehicles: the extent to which “driverless” systems rely on human backstops. While companies market fully autonomous capability, many deploy layered safety frameworks that include remote support functions.

The involvement of overseas personnel introduces additional questions around cybersecurity, data protection, and response latency. Remote assistance is framed as a redundancy mechanism designed to enhance safety rather than replace autonomy.

Waymo’s clarification seeks to draw a sharp line between advisory input and direct vehicle control, emphasizing that its vehicles are not remotely driven during public road operations.

Scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers is expected to intensify as robotaxi deployments expand in U.S. cities. The outcome of these inquiries could influence future federal guidance on tele-operations, disclosure requirements, and the permissible scope of remote intervention in autonomous vehicle fleets.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday welcomed Japan’s commitment to invest nearly $36 billion in oil, gas, and critical mineral projects across Texas, Ohio, and Georgia, describing the pledge as the “first tranche” of a sweeping $550 billion strategic investment initiative under the landmark U.S.-Japan trade deal.

“Our MASSIVE Trade Deal with Japan has just launched!” Trump posted on social media. “The scale of these projects are so large, and could not be done without one very special word, TARIFFS.”

The president’s comments underscore his administration’s use of tariffs as leverage to secure foreign investment commitments, a tactic central to the agreement that reduced most Japanese import tariffs to 15%. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi framed the investments as mutually beneficial.

“We believe these initiatives truly embody the purpose of this Strategic Investment Initiative, namely the promotion of mutual benefit between Japan and the United States, the enhancement of economic security, and the promotion of economic growth,” she posted on X (translated via Google).

Breakdown of Major Projects

The $36 billion initial tranche comprises three flagship initiatives:

1. Portsmouth Powered Land Project (Ohio)
   Valued at $33 billion and operated by SB Energy (a SoftBank subsidiary), this natural gas-fired power facility is expected to generate 9.2 gigawatts of electricity. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called it “the largest natural gas generation facility in history,” highlighting its scale and strategic importance for U.S. energy security and industrial demand.
2. Texas GulfLink Deepwater Crude Oil Export Facility
   A $2.1 billion project off the Texas coast, developed by Dallas-based Sentinel Midstream. At full capacity, it is projected to enable up to $30 billion in annual U.S. crude exports, strengthening America’s position as a global energy exporter.
3. Synthetic Diamond Grit Facility (Georgia)
   A $600 million investment to produce diamond grit, dust, and powder—critical raw materials for U.S. industrial manufacturing due to their exceptional hardness and wear resistance. The facility will be operated by Element Six, part of De Beers Group, the world’s leading diamond company. The Commerce Department emphasized the material’s importance to economic and national security.

The announcement follows the U.S.-Japan trade agreement negotiated in late 2025, under which Tokyo committed $550 billion in investments in American projects over the coming decade in exchange for tariff reductions on most Japanese imports to 15%. The deal reflects Trump’s “America First” strategy of using tariffs as leverage to attract foreign capital and manufacturing to the U.S., particularly in strategic sectors like energy, critical minerals, and advanced manufacturing.

The investments align with U.S. efforts to enhance energy security, reduce reliance on foreign supply chains for critical materials, and bolster domestic industrial capacity. The natural gas and oil export projects directly support U.S. energy dominance, while the synthetic diamond grit facility addresses vulnerabilities in industrial abrasives and superhard materials—sectors where China has significant influence.

The news provided a positive catalyst for U.S. energy and industrial stocks. Shares of natural gas infrastructure companies, midstream operators, and critical materials firms rose modestly in early trading. Adani Group’s recent $100 billion AI data center announcement in India and similar global moves underscore the surging demand for reliable, large-scale power generation—demand that projects like Portsmouth Powered Land are positioned to meet.

The deal also highlights Japan’s strategic pivot toward deeper U.S. economic integration amid rising geopolitical tensions with China. Tokyo has sought to diversify supply chains and strengthen alliances with the U.S. following disruptions in critical minerals and semiconductors.

Broader Trade and Investment Dynamics

The U.S.-Japan agreement is part of a series of bilateral deals Trump has pursued since returning to office. Similar frameworks have been negotiated with India, South Korea, and select European partners, with tariffs used as leverage to secure investment commitments and market access concessions.

The $550 billion pledge—while spread over a decade—represents one of the largest foreign direct investment commitments in U.S. history. If fully realized, it would support hundreds of thousands of jobs in energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure while strengthening bilateral ties.

The initial $36 billion tranche, for now, focuses on high-impact, strategic projects that align with U.S. priorities: energy independence, critical materials security, and industrial competitiveness. Business leaders expect that the success of these flagship initiatives will influence the pace and scale of subsequent Japanese investments under the broader agreement.

As the U.S.-Japan partnership deepens, the focus will shift to execution: permitting timelines, regulatory approvals, workforce development, and integration into existing energy and industrial ecosystems.