Waymo’s Overseas Remote Operators Spark Senate Safety Concerns

Testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Waymo Chief Safety Officer Mauricio Peña confirmed a practice that has become a focal point for regulatory concern: the company relies on remote human operators to assist its vehicles when they encounter scenarios they cannot independently resolve. Under questioning from Senator Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Peña acknowledged that not all these operators are based in the United States, later identifying the Philippines as one overseas location. This revelation directly challenged Waymo’s public positioning of its technology.

Senator Markey issued a stark warning, arguing that overseas human involvement undermines claims of full autonomy while introducing significant risks. “Having people overseas influencing American vehicles is a safety issue,” Markey stated. He raised specific concerns about potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the possibility that information provided to remote operators could be outdated. Lawmakers further questioned whether these foreign-based operators are subject to U.S. licensing or regulatory standards, pointing to a potential accountability gap.

In response to the scrutiny, Waymo mounted a vigorous defense, drawing a clear distinction between remote assistance and remote driving. A company spokesperson clarified to Decrypt that remote operators are not drivers and do not control vehicles in real time. “Their role is not to drive the vehicle remotely. They’re not remote drivers,” the spokesperson said. “They answer, generally speaking, multiple-choice questions posed to them by the vehicle.” The company emphasized that all driving decisions and actions occur onboard the autonomous vehicle itself.

Waymo characterized the human input as purely contextual. “The human offers a suggestion in a challenging scenario, and the Waymo Driver will take that suggestion into account when making its next decision,” the spokesperson explained. To address safety and competency concerns, Waymo stated that all fleet response agents, both U.S.-based and overseas, hold driver’s licenses and receive training on local road rules for the regions they support. The company insists this system is a limited support layer, essential for navigating rare edge cases while maintaining vehicle autonomy.

Safety researchers offered nuanced perspectives on the debate. Philip Koopman, a professor emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, argued that even contextual guidance can be decisive. “Even though Waymo says these remote assistants aren’t actually steering or braking, their helping out can substantially contribute to a crash, and, in my mind, that makes them a backup driver,” Koopman told Decrypt, referencing past incidents where remote assistance contributed to errors.

Conversely, William Riggs, a professor at the University of San Francisco, noted that off-site human support is consistent with current autonomous system design. “It is also important to distinguish between ‘remote human assistance’ and ‘remote driving,'” Riggs said. He explained that companies developing true Level 4 autonomy use remote supervisors as a support layer, with vehicles operating independently within carefully defined Operational Design Domains (ODDs) established with state regulators.

This hearing arrives at a critical regulatory juncture. Congress is currently weighing whether to include a national autonomous-vehicle framework in the next surface transportation bill. Simultaneously, U.S. states continue to develop their own regulations, creating a complex patchwork for companies like Waymo and Tesla, which also testified. The debate over overseas operators crystallizes broader questions about accountability, safety validation, and the legal frameworks needed as this $126 billion-valued company and its competitors scale into new markets.