House investigator targeting Nashville mayor's standoff with ICE gives explosive update amid LA riots
FIRST ON FOX: House GOP investigators looking at the Nashville mayor's battle with federal immigration officials are setting their sights on the riots in Los Angeles, a key Republican lawmaker told the Trump administration.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., is helping lead House Republicans' investigation into Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell, which is being facilitated by the House committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, respectively.
He delivered an update on that investigation to senior Trump law enforcement officials Thursday, arguing a key fund being used to help illegal immigrants is being promoted using taxpayer dollars despite city officials' insistence otherwise.
Ogles also revealed House investigators were "closely monitoring" events in Los Angeles, where rioters have engaged in violent standoffs with law enforcement in response to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids there last weekend.
Noncitizen La Rioters Could Be Deported Under New House Bill
"Although described as privately funded, the Belonging Fund has been promoted through official city platforms and appears to leverage city infrastructure. Its stated purpose – to provide legal aid, housing, transportation, and other support to individuals arrested or targeted by ICE – raises serious concerns," Ogles wrote to Trump officials.
Read On The Fox News App
"If any federal resources were used directly or indirectly, this could constitute a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act or federal grant restrictions."
He also questioned whether funds were used "to harbor or conceal individuals from lawful detention."
The fund's website states that "donations to the fund are made possible solely by individual donors and private organizations – no government dollars are included. That means no taxpayer dollars are being used in the administration or distribution of this fund."
Gop Unveils New Weapon To Help Slash Billions In Government Waste As Republicans Rally Behind Trump's Plan
It comes after ICE agents working with the Tennessee Highway Patrol arrested nearly 200 people the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said were illegal immigrants, many of them criminals with gang affiliations or other sordid pasts.
A DHS news release targeted O'Connell by name over comments he made in early May.
"What's clear today is that people who do not share our values of safety and community have the authority to cause deep community harm."
After the arrests, O'Connell signed an executive order aimed at tracking peoples' interactions with federal immigration authorities, according to WSMV4.
"It's important for us to get this right, and it's very frustrating to see a failure in the process," O'Connell said of ICE's work in his city.
Ogles argued it amounted to a "deeply troubling pattern of resistance to lawful immigration enforcement," adding the probe "is not limited to the City of Nashville."
"In particular, we are closely reviewing recent events in Los Angeles, California, where violent protests allegedly in opposition to immigration enforcement have erupted," Ogles said.
President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard into Los Angeles to quell the riots over the objections of Democratic city and state officials.
Democrats have accused the Republican administration of a drastic overreach of presidential powers and needless escalation, while GOP allies of Trump argued that it was a necessary answer to the situation.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said it could not confirm receipt of the letter.
Fox News Digital also reached out to DHS, the FBI and the White House for a response to Ogles' letter. Fox News Digital also reached out to the Nashville and Los Angeles mayors' offices.Original article source: House investigator targeting Nashville mayor's standoff with ICE gives explosive update amid LA riots
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘A Total Sham': Michelle Obama's Nutrition Adviser Lets Loose on MAHA
Before there was MAHA, there was Michelle. Anyone following the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again movement can't help but recall former First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to improve Americans' diets — and the vitriol she faced in response. Now, many of the same Republicans who skewered Michelle Obama as a 'nanny state' warrior have embraced the MAHA movement. To explore this head-spinning turn, I called up Sam Kass, the former White House chef under President Barack Obama and a food policy adviser wholed the first lady's 'Let's Move' initiative. Kass said he was happy to find common ground with Kennedy and his MAHA brigade where possible. But he argued Kennedy's HHS has done little to actually improve the health of the public so far, and was instead mostly taking steps that would do real damage, including by undermining the use of vaccines. Kass also warned potentially MAHA-curious food advocates against legitimizing the Trump administration by offering support for Kennedy. 'Those who are lending their voice for the things that they support are going to ultimately help enable outcomes that are going to be quite devastating for this country and for our kids,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. At the same time, Kass is not surprised with MAHA's growing popularity. In the 10-plus years since Kass left the White House, the issues of diet-related chronic disease haven't abated and Americans are more anxious about their health than ever. Wellness is a trillion-dollar industry, and MAHA influencers have filled the gap left by Democrats. 'The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue,' he said. 'We're getting what we deserve here in some ways.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. How do you square the earlier conservative criticism of the 'Let's Move' initiative with the rise of MAHA? Are you surprised by the seeming contradiction? I think most of that is because Republicans are fearful of President Trump. And therefore, if he is putting somebody in a position of great power and backing him, there's a huge part of the party that's going to go along with whatever that may be. I don't think this is actually about the Republican Party taking this up. This is actually about a Democrat, traditionally, who had built up a pretty strong following on these issues, and decided to join forces with President Trump. It's not like any of these ideas are coming from the GOP platform. This is an RFK-led effort that they're now supporting. So are they hypocrites for that? Certainly. But I welcome Republican support on trying to genuinely improve the health of the nation. Frankly, if we had had that for the last 20 years, I think that cultural retention would be far better. The reality, though, is what they're actually doing I don't think is going to have any positive impact, or very little. Even what they're saying is problematic on some levels, but what they're doing is a far cry from anything that's going to create the health outcomes this country needs. When you say that, do you mean banning soda from SNAP or the food dyes issue? Are there specific things that come to mind? It's a long list. There's the critique that MAHA brings at the highest level, that chronic disease has exploded in our country. Nobody can refute that, and what we're eating is a big driver of poor health outcomes on many different levels. That is absolutely true. What we grow, how we're growing it, and what's being made out of it is quite literally killing people. That is something that First Lady Michelle Obama said way back when. I've been saying it for a couple of decades. After that, everything falls apart in my mind. We can start with food dyes as the biggest announcement they made thus far. I'm all for getting food dyes out of food. There's just not a basis of evidence that most of the ones that are being used are actually the drivers of many of these health conditions. It was reported that they were banning food dyes. Sadly, what they did was a total sham. It was a farce of an event. There was no policy at all that was announced. There was no guidance, there was no regulatory proposal, there wasn't even a request for information. There was absolutely nothing put forward to revoke the approvals of these dyes. And the reason I believe is that to revoke an approval, you have to show that it's harming the public health. That's what we did for trans fats. Trans fats had been approved for consumption. There was plenty of evidence to show that that food was really driving death and disease in the country, and we banned it through a regulatory mechanism. I could not fathom making an announcement like that without actually having a real policy to put in place. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry about what they did. Also, you see a bunch of the influencers holding up bags of Fruit Loops and saying, 'In Europe or Canada, these have no [synthetic] food dyes and ours do.' But the fact of the matter is Fruit Loops aren't good for you either way. Part of the danger of RFK is he keeps talking about gold standard science and rebooting our public policy and science. The reality is he's doing the exact opposite. He's going to fast food restaurants, touting them on national television as the head of Health and Human Services, [saying that] a cheeseburger and french fries is good for you now because it's cooked in beef fat which is just the most insane thing on literally every single level. It has absolutely no basis in science. We're focusing on issues that are absolutely not going to make an iota of difference in public health. It's absolutely shocking. They have a platform that is fear-based on certain issues, like these food dyes or seed oils, which are absolutely not addressing the core of what we're eating and the core of what's really harming our health. The problem is the fries and the cheeseburger. It's not the oil that it's fried in. It's actually quite scary to me to see what's playing out. Why do you think the politics of food have changed in the years since you were in the White House, and why do you think MAHA ideas have such appeal? I don't exactly know for sure. In the age of social media, the thing that gets the algorithms the most activity is more extreme views. I think people are very vulnerable to very compelling, very scientifically sounding narratives that [MAHA influencers] all have, based on one study here or another study there, that can weave a narrative of fear. It's not like food dyes are good, I'm happy to see them go. But you get people scared of what they're eating to the point where people stop eating vegetables because they're worried about the pesticides, which is just not good for their health. This fear is definitely taking hold. I think it's because the mediums on which this information travels are exacerbating that fear. You already mentioned the food dye announcement and why that was concerning to you. What are some of the other actions that you think aren't necessarily achieving the stated goals? If you step back and start to look at what actions have actually been taken, what you're actually seeing is a full-on assault on science throughout HHS. You're seeing a complete gutting of NIH, which funds much of the research needed to understand what in hyper-processed foods is undermining people's health and how to actually identify those correlations so you can regulate it very aggressively. You're seeing the complete gutting or elimination of departments within CDC and FDA that oversee the safety of our food. Food toxicologists have been fired. There's a department in CDC that's in charge of assessing chronic health and environmental exposures to toxins. Those offices have been eliminated. The idea that somehow you're going to be more aggressively regulating based on the best science, while you're absolutely wholesale cutting scientific research and gutting the people who are in charge of overseeing the very industry that you're trying to clamp down on is a joke. Then look at the 'big, beautiful bill' that is being supported by this administration, and it's catastrophic to the public health of the United States of America. Eight million people are going to lose access to health care. Three million plus are going to lose SNAP assistance. Then we can get into USDA and EPA. Everybody's got to remember that the number one threat to the public health of the United States of America is climate change. If we continue on this path of pulling back every regulatory effort that's been made to try to transition our society to a much more sustainable, lower-carbon world, that's also preparing itself to deal with the volatility that's coming from the climate, we're not going to have food to eat. This idea that you're going to have big announcements about food dyes and Fruit Loops, while you completely roll back every effort to prepare our agricultural system and our food system to deal with climate change, you're gaslighting the American public. Have you spoken to the former first lady about MAHA at all? Not in any kind of depth. Have you ever been in touch with Kennedy? Have you ever talked to him about these issues? He's very close to a number of people I'm good friends with, but no, I have not. You noted Kennedy used to be a Democrat. His issues — his opposition to pesticides, his support for healthy nutrition, with all the caveats that we just discussed — these were Democratic issues. Now, this MAHA coalition helped Trump win the White House. Why do you think Democrats have ceded this terrain? The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue. These are kitchen table issues. Our very well-being, our ability to eat food that's not harming ourselves and our kids, is fundamental to life on planet Earth and what it means to have a vibrant society. The fact that Democrats, much to my chagrin, definitely not because of lack of trying, have not taken this issue up with great effort over the last 15 years is shameful. We're getting what we deserve here in some ways. I'm deeply critical of Democrats, with some exceptions. Sen. Cory Booker has been amazing on these issues. [Former Sen.] Jon Tester is also great. But it was never part of the platform, and it absolutely always should have been. If there's some common ground to be found with Republicans, then great. We could get a lot done. But we can't just turn over the keys to this issue to people who are not serious. When you worked in the Obama White House, you pushed better nutrition labeling, active living, bans on unhealthy foods in school meals and trans fat. The recent MAHA report pointed the finger at similar programs for chronic illness. Is that a place where you and MAHA advocates are on the same page, and how do you balance that with the concerns you've raised? There's no clean answer to that. We largely, not entirely, share the same critique when it comes to food. Vaccines are another thing which are important to also talk about. People are trying to pick the issue that they like and can get around and pretend like the rest isn't happening. It would be great if we got food dyes out, but it would pale in comparison to if he continues down the path to undermine vaccines as the foundation of public health and people start dying, like they are, with measles. That is not even close to a trade. For all of my food friends who read this, or everybody in policy who are like, 'Oh yeah, I can work with him on this issue, but I'm going to turn a blind eye to that,' that doesn't work. That's going to lead to devastating outcomes. On the report, I share the general critique of the problem. I spent my life saying those things and working on these issues. That's the easy part. What matters is what you do about it. How do you actually change what people are eating, and what is it going to take to really put the country on a different trajectory when it comes to health? So far, I've seen absolutely no indication that the issues that they're focused on are going to have any meaningful or measurable impact on public health. Frankly, there's many other things that I think are going to be extremely detrimental. We will see. We're only a few months in. I could, depending on what happens, have a different perspective in six months or 12 months. RFK has blamed the food industry for Americans' poor health. He's argued that government institutions are overwrought with corporate influence. Do you think he's right? And what do you think about RFK's approach to trying to curb corporate influence? I'm all for curbing corporate influence. I had some big fights with industry. I won some of them, and sometimes I got my ass kicked. It's the nature of Washington when you're threatening the basic interests of an industry. What's stunning to me is that the food industry so far has been silent. They haven't done anything to fight back, which says to me that they're not feeling threatened yet. I think they're waiting to see what's going to happen. I'm sure they're doing some stuff in the background, but this is nothing like what we were dealing with. I agree that we should put the public's best interest first, not succumb to industry influence. I think the way that RFK talks about it is a real overstatement down a very dark conspiracy theory. The idea that JAMA and the American Medical Association and the New England Journal are just like corporate journals that just put corporate, completely distorted research out for the sake of making profits, it's just not serious. He starts to discredit the very institutions, like HHS, that you actually need to do the work to rein in industry. The way that industry does make inroads is that they fund a lot of research. If you want to reduce industry influence, you should dramatically increase [government] investment in funding of scientific research on agriculture and climate change, on food and nutrition. One of the biggest fights in the Obama era was over stricter nutrition standards for school lunches. The administration won some of those battles, but quite a few children still have obesity, according to the latest data. Is there anything you wish the Obama administration had done differently? Are there things policymakers should be doing differently? School nutrition is just one part of a young person's diet. You're not going to solve kids' health issues just through school nutrition, but obviously it's a huge lever to pull. If we really want to make progress, you have to look much more holistically at the food environment that people are living in. This is generational work. It's going to take literally decades of work to shift, not just the policies, but our culture, our businesses, to change how people are eating. I think the one thing we missed would have been a much stricter restriction on sugar across the board. We had it for drinks,, but we didn't [apply it across the board], and that was a miss. We should have pushed harder on sugar. I think the policy was a really important start. It can always be improved and strengthened. Both the first Trump administration and this one are looking to roll back some of that. The thing that we have to not forget — and this is true for schools, and certainly true for SNAP and WIC — is the biggest problem is not enough money for these programs. I started doing a lot of work on finding ways to restrict sugary drinks as an example from the SNAP program. But if you want to do that and actually get the health outcomes you need, you need to also increase the total dollar amount that people have so they can purchase healthier food. Part of the reason why people are drinking these things is they're the cheapest available drink. Coke is cheaper than water sometimes. RFK recently called sugar 'poison.' Do you agree with that? One of their tactics to obfuscate truth in science is dosage, right? The amount that we're consuming matters. If you had a birthday cake on your birthday and you have a cookie — my kids eat a cookie, they're not dying, they're not being poisoned to death. They're fine. I think the problem is the amount of sugar we're consuming and the sizes of the portions we have. It's the cumulative amount of sugar. It's probably technically not exactly the right word, poison. But I don't take issue with that. I think the levels of sugar consumption for young people are deeply alarming and are absolutely going to drive preventable death and disease for millions and millions of people. It already is and will continue to do so. It is a very serious problem. But what do you do? I can't wait to see the policy proposals here. It's a tough problem to solve. It is not a problem that can be solved overnight, and it's going to take a very comprehensive effort to really shift the amount of sugar we're consuming, but it should be the goal of this administration. They should work very hard at it in a very serious and science-based way. Thus far, I have not seen that.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Waymo cars became sitting ducks during the L.A. protests
Engineers working on self-driving technology have given a lot of thought to difficult questions over the years, including how to keep pedestrians safe and how to avoid collisions with other vehicles. But last weekend's protests in Los Angeles threw a spotlight on one of the thorny problems that remain for autonomous vehicles: what to do about arson, vandalism or other physical attacks. Five vehicles owned by Google's self-driving spinoff Waymo were set ablaze last Sunday during protests against the Trump administration's immigration policies. Images and video of the flaming cars quickly went viral, illustrating for a global audience how vulnerable robotaxis can be in volatile situations. For all their advanced technology, including expensive cameras and sensors, the cars seemed to be defenseless. Waymo says the five cars were in downtown Los Angeles to serve passengers when they were attacked. There were no drivers to plead for mercy, and with crowds surrounding the vehicles, there was no escape path that didn't include threatening pedestrians — something Waymo vehicles are programmed not to do. 'They're very much sitting ducks,' said Jeff Fong, who has worked at tech companies including Lyft and Postmates and now writes a newsletter about cities and technology. And it wasn't the first time Waymo was a victim of arson. Last year, a Waymo in San Francisco's Chinatown was set on fire during Lunar New Year celebrations. Police later charged a juvenile with starting the blaze, saying they had thrown a lit firework into the vehicle. Waymos have been vandalized in other ways, too, including having their tires slashed, their windshields smashed, their doors torn off and their exteriors defaced with spray paint. Local prosecutors have charged individuals in at least some cases. Part of what makes robotaxis vulnerable is their caution. While it's impossible to know if a human driver behind the steering wheel could have deterred or escaped vandalism in any specific case involving a robotaxi, driverless vehicles are generally designed to stay put if there's any risk that they'd hit a person while moving. 'There's been so much effort into making sure they can't hurt human beings,' Fong said. 'That's the problem Waymo has been solving for, rightfully so, but when you have the problem where a human wants to do harm, these cars have no countermeasures.' Autonomous technology companies, including Waymo, appear to be largely at a loss for ideas on how to deter vandalism over the long term. Their cameras may be a partial deterrent — Waymo says each of its cars has 29 cameras — and the company has cooperated with police to help find vandalism suspects after the fact. But Waymo's collection of street data through its cameras and sensors is also one of the sources of anger against the company and other startups like it. Some Uber and Lyft drivers have said that vandalism incidents bolster the importance of human drivers as a deterrent. A spokesperson for Waymo said that in response to the protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere, it was temporarily adjusting its service area. Waymo declined to make anyone available for an interview about the problems of arson and vandalism and how the company plans to deal with such incidents in the long term. The vandalism problem is mostly limited for now to Waymo, which is the biggest self-driving car company. It has about 1,500 vehicles operating in four regions, with additional cities scheduled to come online this year. But the market is set to become more competitive soon, with Tesla saying it plans to launch a robotaxi service this month in Austin, Texas, and Amazon-backed Zoox planning a service in Las Vegas and San Francisco. Representatives for Tesla and Zoox did not respond to requests for comment about how they plan to avoid incidents like last Sunday's attack on Waymo vehicles. The problem has been gnawing at robotaxi fans on message boards on Reddit. In one thread in January, users tossed around ideas like having dedicated security on motorcycles nearby or equipping Waymo vehicles with pepper spray. Adam Millard-Ball, director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, said that robotaxis are a symbolic target for some street demonstrators. 'They're attacked not because they're autonomous cars but because they're a symbol of inequality in cities and a symbol of the power of large technology companies,' he said. He noted that electric scooters are also sometimes targets. He also said it's hard to imagine what the companies, police or city officials could do to eliminate the threat entirely. 'I don't think any country in the world has eliminated vandalism in public spaces,' he said. The incidents are problematic for Waymo on multiple levels: not only the cost of repairing or replacing the vehicles, but also the reputational risk when images and videos spread widely online. There's also the possible danger to passengers. And although no passengers were harmed in the arson incidents, some passengers have been delayed or reported feeling threatened when the cars they were riding in were vandalized from the outside. Last year, a San Francisco woman posted a video online after she said two men targeted her while riding in a Waymo. Then there's the lost business from what Waymo calls 'temporary service adjustments.' In Los Angeles and San Francisco this past week, Waymo stopped serving certain areas that are part of its normal service area. People using the company's app in recent days were greeted with a message, alluding to the street protests: 'Pickup times and routing may be affected by local events. Thank you for your patience.' In San Francisco, that meant Waymo refused to take customers through or to several neighborhoods, including parts of the Financial District, the Civic Center area near City Hall and the sprawling South of Market neighborhood. Waymo also limited service to the Mission District, a historically working-class and Latino neighborhood that's also home now to many tech workers and a vibrant nightlife scene. Thousands of people attended an anti-President Trump protest in the Mission on Monday night, and the effects on Waymo reverberated for days: A post on X with an example of rerouting around the Mission went viral Wednesday, getting 1.2 million views. Searches of the Waymo app by NBC News showed the service continuing to refuse service to parts of the Mission throughout the week, including during relatively quiet morning hours and on Friday. The app labeled certain destinations as 'unreachable.' A Waymo spokesperson said: 'We're taking these heightened measures now out of an abundance of caution.' They said the situation was temporary and subject to change quickly in response to conditions on the ground. Waymo hasn't published a map of which areas are restricted. Mass anti-Trump protests advocating for 'No Kings' are scheduled for Saturday nationwide, providing another potential disruption for robotaxis. Though the service restrictions may be temporary, they struck some people as discriminatory against poorer neighborhoods, with some social media users on X calling the practice 'redlining' on the part of Waymo. The term refers to the decadeslong practice of refusing home loans to predominantly Black neighborhoods. In contrast, ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft, which use human drivers, still offered rides to the Mission in recent days, according to NBC News searches of their apps. San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency rerouted some buses during the height of anti-Trump administration protests, but then resumed regular service. There have been no arrests for the attacks on Waymo vehicles in Los Angeles last Sunday. On Friday, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said it was taking the lead in investigating the Waymo attacks, making them the subject of a federal investigation. 'The cause of these fires is quite obvious,' ATF special agent in charge Kenneth Cooper of the Los Angeles Field Division said in a statement. 'The task at hand now is to determine who is responsible. ATF's National Response Team is going to be a tremendous asset, and we look forward to the results of their efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable,' he said. This article was originally published on
