Federal officials investigate after Waymo self-driving vehicle strikes child near elementary school
Waymo vehicle near Union Square, San Francisco, California, January 22, 2026. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
(SANTA MONICA, Calif.) — Federal officials opened an investigation after a Waymo self-driving vehicle struck a child near an elementary school in California, resulting in minor injuries.
The incident occurred on Jan. 23 in Santa Monica, within two blocks of an elementary school during school drop-off hours, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The vehicle was being operated by its automated driving system and there was no safety operator in it at the time, according to the agency.
The child “ran across the street from behind a double parked SUV towards the school and was struck by the Waymo AV,” the NHTSA said in a statement.
Other children and a crossing guard were in the area at the time, as well as several double-parked vehicles, the agency said.
“Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle,” Waymo said in a statement, adding that the autonomous driver “braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made.”
After the vehicle made contact, the child stood up and walked to the sidewalk, according to Waymo. The company said it called 911 and the vehicle “remained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene.”
Waymo reported that the child, whose age was not released, sustained minor injuries, according to the NHTSA.
Waymo said it reported the incident to the NHTSA the day it occurred and will “cooperate fully with them throughout the process of its investigation.”
The investigation will look into whether the self-driving vehicle “exercised appropriate caution given, among other things, its proximity to the elementary school during drop off hours, and the presence of young pedestrians and other potential vulnerable road users,” the NHTSA said.
Waymo and the NHTSA did not release any details on where the vehicle was traveling and if it had any passengers at the time of the collision.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia (R) and his wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura (L) attend a prayer vigil before he enters a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office on August 25, 2025 in Baltimore, Maryland. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, testifying Thursday at a hearing on whether the government is being vindictive in pursuing a human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, said that no one from the White House or the Department of Justice made the decision to seek an indictment against the Salvadoran native.
The hearing comes after the federal judge overseeing the case, Waverly Crenshaw Jr., canceled the trial in the case in December and wrote in a court order that there was enough evidence to hold a hearing on the question of vindictive prosecution after the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back from detention in El Salvador to face charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop.
“Who decided to seek an indictment against Abrego Garcia” a government lawyer asked Acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire during Thursday’s hearing.
“I did,” McGuire testified.
McGuire said that after reviewing the body cam footage of the 2022 traffic stop, “there were things” that were similar to other human smuggling cases, including the number of individuals in the car, the lack of luggage in the vehicle, and the fact that Abrego Garcia — who was the driver — “seemed to speak on behalf of everyone else.” Abrego Garcia was not charged at that time.
“This really looked like a human smuggling case to me,” McGuire testified.
When asked about his communications with DOJ leadership, McGuire said it was normal for him to be in contact with top officials because of the high-profile immigration case involving Abrego Garcia.
In response to questions about an email from a top DOJ official to McGuire stating that the case was a “top priority,” McGuire said DOJ leadership “always” wanted to stay updated on high-profile cases.
Earlier in Thursday’s hearing, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security said that she felt no pressure to bring charges.
Saoud stated that as she began her preliminary investigation and obtained the video of the traffic stop in the spring, “the case started getting stronger.”
When asked by a DOJ attorney whether she felt pressured by the government to move the case toward prosecution, Saoud said no.
“We’re not swayed by political attention or political posturing,” Saoud testified.
The government is currently blocked from deporting Abrego Garcia, who was released from immigration detention in December. In a separate case last week, a federal judge ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot re-detain him because his 90-day detention period had expired and the government lacked a viable plan for his deportation.
The Salvadoran native, who had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, was deported last March to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison — despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution. The Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13, which he and his attorneys deny.
He was brought back to the U.S. in June to face the human smuggling charges, to which he pleaded not guilty.
After being released into the custody of his brother in Maryland pending trial, he was again detained by immigration authorities before being released in December.
(CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas) — The Uvalde, Texas, gunman fired 117 rounds in two Robb Elementary School classrooms during a two-minute period before school police officer Adrian Gonzales entered the building, a Texas Ranger told jurors on Friday.
Ranger Nick Hill testified that Gonzales had a window of one minute and four seconds after he parked his car before gunman Salvador Ramos entered the school. Gonzales took three minutes and 53 seconds to enter Robb Elementary after parking his car, Hill said.
Hill said Gonzales parked at 11:31:55 a.m. and radioed in the active shooter report at 11:32:09 a.m.
Ramos entered the west side of Robb Elementary at 11:32:59 a.m., and, after firing 21 shots in a hallway, he entered the first of two classrooms at 11:33:45 a.m. Gonzales entered the south door of Robb Elementary at 11:35:48 a.m., Hill said.
In total, Ramos fired 173 shots during the massacre, while law enforcement discharged 25 rounds, Hill said. Ramos killed 19 students and two teachers.
Prosecutors allege Gonzales, who is charged with child endangerment, did not follow his training and endangered the 19 students who died and an additional 10 surviving students. Prosecutors allege Gonzales not only failed when he arrived at the scene, but also when he got into the school because he retreated after two other officers were hit by gunfire.
Gonzales has pleaded not guilty and his lawyers argue he is being unfairly blamed for a broader law-enforcement failure that day. The defense argued Gonzales did everything he could, including calling in the shooting and attempting to enter the school.
Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed Federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026 in New York City. (Photo by XNY/Star Max/GC Images)
(NEW YORK) — Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores are set to return to a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday for a status conference that could determine the trajectory of the criminal case against them.
Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty to federal charges including narco-terrorism during their first appearance in court in January, and their attorneys have since pushed to have the case dismissed over concerns that the Trump administration is blocking the Venezuelan government from paying their legal fees.
For more than a decade, Maduro enjoyed an opulent life as Venezuela’s president, living in the neoclassical palace in Caracas and accruing a net worth reportedly in the millions. He allegedly owned multiple mansions, two private jets, millions in jewelry and cash, a horse farm, and a fleet of luxury vehicles.
But as he awaits trial in a Brooklyn jail cell, the ousted head of state is now pushing to have his case dismissed by arguing he doesn’t have enough money to pay for his own legal defense — and his lawyers argue his due process rights will be violated if Venezuela is unable to pay for his lawyers because of U.S. sanctions on the country.
“I understand that the government of Venezuela is prepared to fund my legal defense and it is my expectation that it will,” Maduro said in a sworn declaration. “I have relied on this expectation and cannot afford to pay for my own legal defense.”
As the Trump administration gradually warms relations with Venezuela, Thursday’s hearing marks the second time that the ousted Venezuelan leader has appeared in a United States courtroom since special operations forces captured him in Caracas in January.
During the status conference on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein is expected to hear from both sides about how the case will progress toward a trial, including what pre-trial motions the defense plans to make and how much evidence has been turned over by prosecutors.
In a move that triggered an international outcry, Maduro was captured and brought to the U.S. in January after the United States carried out what President Trump described as a “large scale strike” in the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro’s attorneys seek dismissal
Last month, attorneys for Maduro and Flores asked the court to dismiss the indictment after the Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OLFAC) restricted the ability for Venezuela to pay for their legal fees.
Defense lawyers argue that the couple’s Sixth Amendment and due process rights would be violated if Venezuela is unable to financially support Maduro, who Venezuelan interim president Delcy Rodriguez says is still “the legitimate president” of the country.
“The conduct of the United States government not only undermines Mr. Maduro’s rights but also this Court’s mandate to provide a fair trial to all defendants who come before it in accordance with the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution,” Maduro’s attorney Barry Pollack said in a motion last month.
Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York have pushed back on the request, arguing that Maduro and Flores are still allowed to access their own money to pay for their legal defense. While the Treasury Department initially allowed Venezuela to pay for their legal defense, prosecutors said the authorization was an “administrative error” and denied that the decision to change the terms of their license was targeted.
“OFAC’s Longstanding sanctions regime predated the initiation of the criminal charges the defendants now face and was instituted for purposes completely separate from the criminal charges currently pending before this Court,” defense lawyers said. “The defendants’ attempts to portray OFAC’s sanctions as a targeted attack on the defendants and their rights are misleading and undermined by the facts and chronology of this case and OFAC’s independent decision-making.”
Defense attorneys expressed skepticism about that argument by highlighting that the Trump administration has recently issued multiple licenses to allow the export of Venezuelan oil and other goods despite the existing sanctions.
“There is no apparent reason why the use of Venezuelan funds to pay for the legal defense in this case jeopardizes national security and the government offers none,” defense attorneys said. “The national security emergency rationale that the government invokes, without explaining, has even less force now that the government has normalized relations with the government of Venezuela and recognized the current Venezuelan government.”
While the issue is fully briefed, the judge could opt to set a separate hearing on the motion.
‘I am innocent,” Maduro told the court
Maduro’s last appearance in federal court came just days after he was captured in Venezuela by U.S. special operations forces and transported to New York to face criminal charges.
After Judge Hellerstein summarized the charges against him, Maduro told the court through an interpreter that he is “the president of Venezuela” and that he was “captured at home in Caracas, Venezuela.”
“I am innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man. I am still president of my country,” Maduro said to enter his plea.
Flores similarly pleaded not guilty after being informed of the charges against her and her rights. Their attorneys did not ask for bail or their release, though Judge Hellerstein said he would be open to reviewing a bail application in the future. In the meantime, the former heads of state have been detained at the federal detention center in Brooklyn.
As he was escorted out of the courtroom, Maduro responded to a member of the public seated in court who shouted at him in Spanish to say in part, “You will pay in the name of Venezuela.”
“I am the elected president. I am a prisoner of war. I will be free,” Maduro responded.
Maduro’s defense?
During his arraignment in January, Maduro’s attorney signaled that they will likely argue that Maduro should be protected from prosecution as a head of state.
“He is the head of a sovereign state,” said Pollack, added that there are “issues about the legality of his military abduction.”
Maduro’s lawyers have not yet filed any motions based on that argument, instead focusing on concerns about his due process rights after the Treasury Department cut off Venezuela’ s ability to pay for Maduro’s legal defense.
According to ABC News Legal Contributor James Sample, Maduro’s lawyers could attempt to argue that he is protected by “head of state immunity,” which is a principle of international law that the leaders of other countries are shielded from the jurisdiction of other country’s criminal courts.
“They will be arguing that because he was the head of essentially a sister sovereign of another nation, and he was doing those things in that nation, that the United States courts lack the jurisdiction, which is simply to say the power to hold him criminally accountable,” Sample said. “Whether a U.S. court will embrace that defense or not is a different matter, but it is not a frivolous argument.”
Former Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, who was never elected president, unsuccessfully attempted to use head-of-state immunity when he was tried in the U.S. on drug smuggling charges in 1991, but a federal appeals court concluding he “never served as the constitutional leader of Panama.”
What prosecutors allege
The Department of Justice initially brought an indictment against Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials in March of 2020, arguing they committed narco-terrorism by conspiring with drug cartels to allow the flow of cocaine into the United States.
Nearly six years later, prosecutors filed a new indictment charging Maduro, Flores, Maduro’s son, and three others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy and weapons offenses.
“Nicolas Maduro Moros, the defendant, now sits atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking,” the indictment said.
Prosecutors alleged that Maduro allowed “cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish for his own benefit,” including by providing diplomatic cover to drug traffickers and money launderers. Maduro has pleaded not guilty and denies being involved in drug trafficking.
“[Maduro] is at the forefront of that corruption and has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States,” the indictment said.
