WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump agreed Tuesday evening to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, at least delaying his threat of a catastrophic attack on the country’s civilian population as he said the countries were near a long-term peace agreement.

The ceasefire was negotiated with Pakistani leaders as intermediaries, Trump said in a post to his social media site, Truth Social. The deal was conditional on Iran agreeing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for the global supply of oil, Trump wrote.

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” he wrote. 

Trump added that he had received “a 10-point proposal from Iran” that would form the basis of a long-term agreement. 

“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he said.

A day of global outrage

Earlier Tuesday, Trump had escalated his rhetoric against Iran, even as some Republicans in Congress began to back away from his declarations, threatening that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” he wrote. 

He ended the 85-word message with “God Bless the Great People of Iran!”

The threat drew intense opposition throughout the day, including from Pope Leo XIV.

Trump posted the early-morning message roughly 12 hours before his self-imposed deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise face U.S. strikes on the country’s bridges and power plants, he wrote Sunday in an expletive-laden Truth Social post. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, denounced Trump as “an extremely sick person.” 

“Each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is,” he wrote on X Tuesday morning.

Some Democrats in Congress said it’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and remove Trump from office.

Threats followed rescue operations

Trump’s flurry of fresh threats followed Iran’s downing of two U.S. military aircraft. U.S. forces and intelligence officers launched a major operation to rescue one of the plane’s weapons system officers, which proved successful Sunday, according to the president and U.S. officials. Two pilots had already been rescued.

As of Tuesday, the United States struck Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal, according to The Associated Press, and Israeli forces struck eight bridges, according to a post on X by Israel’s military. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday forces had also struck railways. “Yesterday, we destroyed transport planes and dozens of helicopters. Today, we attacked the train tracks and bridges used by the Revolutionary Guards,” he wrote on social media.

Speaking in Hungary, Vice President JD Vance said he hopes Iran chooses “the right response” by Trump’s evening deadline. 

“We’ve got tools in our toolkit that we so far haven’t decided to use. The president of the United States can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don’t change their course of conduct,” Vance said.

Sharif n a statement prior to Trump’s post announcing the ceasefir urged all parties to continue negotiations, and for Trump to abandon his Tuesday night deadline.

“To allow diplomacy to run its course, I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks. Pakistan, in all sincerity, requests the Iranian brothers to open Strait of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as a goodwill gesture,” Sharif wrote on social media.

Trump repeated the threat to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure Monday during a lengthy White House press conference. Targeting civilian infrastructure violates international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions that were updated following World War II.

U.S. cybersecurity officials alerted critical infrastructure operators to “urgently review” cybersecurity protocols and take measures to disconnect certain components from the internet after indications that Iranian hackers have begun exploiting water and energy systems. 

The advisory Tuesday from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and a host of other federal agencies including the FBI and Department of Energy, did not provide details on locations.

Sens. Ron Johnson, John Curtis express objections

Republicans on Capitol Hill, with the exception of Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, have blocked efforts to rein in Trump’s war on Iran, but three more GOP voices against the conflict emerged in recent days. 

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told conservative commentator John Solomon Monday that he is against Trump’s threats to bomb civilian targets in Iran.

“I hope and pray that President Trump is just using this as bluster,” he said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast, produced by Just the News. “… We are not at war with the Iranian people. We are trying to liberate them.”

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, declared opposition Friday to funding the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. 

“I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress,” he wrote on X.

On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Nathaniel Moore, R-Texas, joined the opposition, posting on X that “what sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it.”

“I do not support the destruction of a ‘whole civilization.’ That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America,” Moore wrote in a statement on X.

The U.S. and Israel began a joint bombing campaign on Iran on Feb. 28, killing  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous other senior officials of the Islamic state. 

In response, Iran has targeted global oil trade by effectively choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a major maritime passage for one-fifth of the world’s petroleum and liquid natural gas. 

The conflict has killed thousands of civilians across the Middle East and injured thousands more. Thirteen U.S. service members have died, and 372 have been injured since the start of fighting, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System.

25th Amendment

Trump’s rash threat to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” sparked numerous calls to remove the president from office.

Former U.S. House GOP lawmaker and Trump loyalist, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, swiftly denounced Trump’s latest threat.

“25TH AMENDMENT!!! Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness,” she posted on X.

Nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including several progressive members, also turned to social media to appeal for the 25th Amendment, which authorizes the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members or Congress to deem the president unfit for office. The amendment has never been invoked.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., accused Trump of threatening “massive war crimes” and also implicated Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line. Pete Hegseth is complicit. I’ve called for the 25th Amendment and am introducing Articles of Impeachment against Hegseth,” said Ansari, an Iranian-American.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said “removal is the top priority.”

In a video message posted on X, Markey urged the House to “immediately” come back into session and pass articles of impeachment against Trump, and for the Senate to remove him from office.

“He is completely unstable and dangerous,” Markey said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., countered the calls, saying, “The president is facing serious mental decline; I’m with you on that.”

“But unfortunately, invoking the 25th is not realistic right now, given his oddball cabinet of sycophants and eccentrics, and Republican ‘spines of foam.’ We’re going to have to buckle down and win this the old-fashioned way.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, whose seat in red northwest Ohio is under threat, stopped short of mentioning the 25th Amendment, but urged GOP congressional leadership to act as Trump is “recklessly threatening to commit atrocities and war crimes.”

“This is unhinged saber rattling that follows consistent threats over the past week to violate international law. The President is using the might of the United States military to wage war without constitutionally mandated approval from Congress. Until Congress reasserts itself as a co-equal branch of government, he will remain unchecked and the security of our nation will continue to be at risk,” she said in a statement.

Illegal orders

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., reminded American service members in a statement Tuesday that attacking civilians en masse “puts them in very real legal jeopardy,” as the action is not only in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but also the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, and five other congressional Democrats who served in the military or national security roles, published a video in November stating that members of the armed services are not obligated to follow illegal orders. The video came during the height of the administration’s strikes on small alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean.

“It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops — especially those in command — will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders,” Slotkin said in a statement Tuesday.

Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who appeared in the video with Slotkin, said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., must bring the House back into session and vote to end the war.

“Members of our Armed Forces must remember their oaths to the Constitution. As I have said before, if servicemembers are asked to carry out illegal orders, they have a solemn duty to follow the law,” said Crow, a former paratrooper and Army Ranger.

Pope Leo XIV, during a press gaggle outside his summer residence near Rome, appealed to Americans to contact Congress and express opposition to the Iran war.

“I would invite the citizens of all countries involved to contact the authorities, political leaders, congressmen, to ask them, tell them to work for peace and to reject war always,” he said.

The offices of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Johnson did not respond for comment on Trump’s latest statements.

A general social media account for the Senate Republican Conference posted mid-day Tuesday: “Iran would be wise to take President Trump at his word. They can choose the easy way or the hard way.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday declined to rule out bombing certain types of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools and hospitals, and said that any agreement to end the war must include free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

“We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me,” he said during a 90-minute press conference. “And part of that deal is going to be, we want free traffic of oil and everything else.”

Trump said he hopes he doesn’t need to bomb non-military targets, like power plants and bridges, but that even if he did, he doesn’t believe it would constitute a war crime. International law, including the Geneva Conventions ban on destroying “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” generally considers the targeting of civilian infrastructure a war crime.

Trump also reiterated a Tuesday evening deadline for Iranian leaders to make a deal to end the war.

“We’re giving them until tomorrow, eight o’clock Eastern time,” he said. “And after that, they’re going to have no bridges. They’re going to have no power plants. Stone ages, yeah. Stone ages.”

Negotiations to end the war that Trump and the Israeli government began in late February, have been slow going, in part, due to the destruction of Iran’s communications infrastructure.  

“We’re communicating like they used to communicate 2,000 years ago with children bringing a note back and forth,” Trump said. “They have no communication.”

Trump contended during the press conference that many Iranians have welcomed their country being bombed and that they get upset when the destruction halts. 

“They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” he said. “We’ve had numerous intercepts. ‘Please keep bombing.’ Bombs that are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing. Do it.’ And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding. And when we leave and we’re not hitting those areas, they’re saying, ‘Please come back. Come back. Come back.'” 

Trump said that after the war ends, his administration “may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation.”

“Right now, if we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was,” he said. “And the only way they’re going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.”

Prosecuting leak

Trump said a search had begun for whichever official or officials released information last week about a U.S. aircraft being shot down over Iran, leading to rescue operations for two servicemen. 

“So whoever that was, we think we’ll be able to find it out, because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,’ he said. “And we know who, and you know who we’re talking about.” 

Numerous news organizations published the information on Friday and it wasn’t immediately clear which one Trump planned to pursue. 

REDWOOD CITY, Calif., -Zūm, a leader in student mobility, today announced unaudited 2025 financial highlights, reflecting sustained growth at scale as the company expands in the $50 billion student mobility market, the largest segment of the mass mobility industry, and one of the last segments still underserved by AI and cloud technology. While the industry has historically been defined by fragmented, analog transportation services, Zum is pioneering a mobility experience that is replacing traditional approaches to operating yellow buses with a modern, fully integrated mass mobility ecosystem.

2025 Financial Highlights:

Revenue of $333 million, up 35% year-over-year.
Four-year revenue CAGR of greater than 40%.
Over $2 billion in Total Contract Value (TCV).
Adjusted EBITDA1 breakeven and steadily improving contribution margin.

“Every weekday, 26 million American students ride the school bus — three times more passengers than U.S. airlines carry — making it the largest mass transportation system in the country and one of the last to undergo technological transformation,” said Ritu Narayan, Zum Founder and CEO. “For too long, families have faced morning anxiety, wondering if the bus will arrive, if it is safe, and when their kids will get home. We are redefining mobility by moving far beyond legacy models to create a connected, intelligent system for the communities we serve. In student transportation, that means replacing legacy infrastructure with a dynamic, technology-enabled platform — transforming what was once a standalone service into a responsive ecosystem that anticipates and adapts to the needs of districts and families.”

Durable Business Model Driving Scalable Growth
Across the United States, forward-thinking school districts have moved away from the status quo and adopted Zum as their transportation provider. In these districts, Zum has transformed their transportation systems into state-of-the-art operations characterized by enhanced visibility, improved safety standards, real-time data that provides full transparency, and measurable performance outcomes.

Today Zum serves more than 4,000 schools across 15 states, including major districts such as Branford (CT), Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles (CA), Oakland (CA), Omaha (NE), Roanoke City (VA), San Francisco (CA), and Seattle (WA). Zum’s business model is built on structural advantages to drive predictable, profitable growth:

Long-term contracted revenue: 5-10 year agreements with school districts, delivering predictable cash flow, with an established track record of improving profitability.

Exceptional retention: Strong customer loyalty, with growing revenue as existing customers expand their utilization of Zum services.

“Our strong unit economics and long-term contracted revenue demonstrate the scalability of our platform,” said Daniel Berenbaum, Zum’s Chief Financial Officer. “We achieved Adjusted EBITDA breakeven while growing revenue 35% year-over-year, validating our disciplined approach to expansion. Student mobility is one of the last major undigitized sectors, representing a $50 billion segment of the mass mobility industry. While legacy competitors manage physical assets, Zum is deploying a modern, scalable system driven by technology, operational excellence, and safety – using real-time data to connect people, vehicles, and the energy grid, delivering better outcomes for all.”

AI-Powered Technology Driving Reliability and Safety
Zum uses AI and advanced technologies to ensure drivers take the most efficient, logical routes, a significant departure from traditional routing methods that have been used for decades. The system is designed specifically for the unique requirements of student mobility, from complex routing algorithms that account for tiered bell schedules and custom needs, to safety protocols that meet and exceed both bus company and ride-share standards. Zum’s platform also includes mobile apps and web dashboards for students, parents, drivers, dispatchers, and school administrators, enabling enhanced visibility, greater trust, streamlined communication, and incident-tracking capabilities, all powered by real-time data in a single integrated platform.

Modernizing Infrastructure and Powering the Grid
Zum’s electrification strategy represents yet another step in modernization, turning an underutilized asset into an energy resource to power the grid. Zum’s groundbreaking vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology transforms school bus parking yards into virtual power plants, storing and distributing energy to support grid resilience. Zum made history in the 2024–25 school year by deploying the nation’s first fully electric school bus fleet in the Oakland Unified School District in California, and recently announced plans to launch a fully electric fleet with V2G capabilities for Branford Public Schools in Connecticut beginning in the 2026–27 school year.

Delivering Measurable Impact at Scale
Zum’s impact is measurable and significant:

Reliability: On average, 98% on-time performance.

Cost Savings: San Francisco Unified has cut annual transportation costs by up to 10% using Zum’s technology-driven platform to optimize routes, fleet utilization, and daily operations. That budget flexibility can enable districts to reinvest directly in classroom priorities such as instructional resources, staffing, and student support, strengthening both academic outcomes and long-term sustainability.

Transformational Customer Impact: With Zum, school districts use up to 25% fewer assets by utilizing a multi-size vehicle fleet, spend up to 20% less time through optimized routes, and report 30% higher asset utilization throughout each day.

Efficiency: Through intelligent routing, Oakland Unified has cut one‑hour or longer commutes from 70% to under 10%, and San Francisco Unified has reduced average bus stop time from 3 minutes to just 8 seconds.

Student Experience: Parents have rated Zum with a 4.9 out of 5-star rating in student experience across 1.5 million reviews.

Attendance: After partnering with Zum, Kansas City Public Schools saw an 89% increase in ridership driven by improved reliability and reduced transportation-related absences in secondary schools from 25% to 5.6% during the 2024–25 school year.

Growth: Safely completed 68.5 million student rides in 2025, up 120% over 2024.

About Zum:
Zum is revolutionizing mass mobility with a fully integrated platform that connects and coordinates people, vehicles, and operations in real time. In the $50 billion student mobility market – the largest segment of the mass mobility industry – Zum is designed to deliver a predictable, safe, and seamless experience for students and families. Today, more than 4,000 schools across 15 states rely on Zum’s advanced platform, with customers now deploying its groundbreaking vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology to modernize vehicles and strengthen grid resilience. Recognized globally for its innovative approach and operational execution, Zum has been named to Fast Company’s World’s Most Innovative Companies, CNBC Disruptor 50 and Changemakers, the World Economic Forum, and the Financial Times Fastest Growing Companies lists. Zum is backed by leading investors including Sequoia Capital, GIC, and SoftBank. Learn more at www.ridezum.com.

The post Zum Achieves Record Revenue in 2025, Scaling Rapidly in the Largest Mass Mobility Market appeared first on School Transportation News.

Pupil transportation is one of the most visible ways a nation demonstrates its commitment to education. Every school day, millions of students travel from home to classroom using systems designed not only for efficiency, but for safety and equity. While Australia and the U.S. share similarities as large, developed, federal nations, their approaches to pupil transportation reflect important structural and cultural differences. 

By examining governance, fleet design, funding models, rural challenges, and safety standards, it becomes clear that both countries aim for the same goal—safe and reliable access to education—but achieve it through different methods.

Both Australia and the U.S. operate under federal systems of government but differently distribute the responsibility for pupil transportation. In the U.S., pupil transportation is primarily managed at the local school district level. States establish regulatory frameworks, and federal safety standards govern vehicle manufacturing. However, day-to-day operations—routing, hiring drivers, maintaining fleets—are typically handled by individual districts or contracted providers. This creates a highly localized system, where policies can vary significantly from one district to another.

In Australia, pupil transportation is largely administered at the state and territory level rather than by individual school districts. States such as New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia design and oversee their own school transport assistance schemes. The federal government plays a minimal operational role. This state-centered approach results in more centralized control within each state, even though policies differ between states.

What’s Different with Pupil Transportation?

The key difference is the scale of control. U.S. decisions are often made at the district level. Australian decisions are typically made at the state level. Both models allow flexibility, but Australia’s approach tends to create more uniformity within each state.

Perhaps the most recognizable feature of American pupil transportation is the yellow school bus. The U.S. yellow bus is a national symbol. Nearly every public school district operates dedicated fleets painted in a standardized shade of yellow. Strict federal safety standards regulate construction, and compartmentalized seating design has been central to American school bus safety philosophy for decades.

Australia does not have the same universal yellow bus requirement. School buses in Australia may be white, yellow, or another color depending on the contractor or region. While clearly marked as school services, they do not carry the same nationally standardized appearance as American buses. This reflects a difference in cultural identity. In the U.S., the yellow bus represents childhood and public education. In Australia, school transportation is more functionally defined than symbolically branded.

Another major difference involves seatbelt policies. In Australia, seatbelts are common in school buses and often required in newer vehicles. In contrast, large American school buses traditionally rely on compartmentalization rather than seatbelts, although seatbelt requirements are expanding in some states. These differing design philosophies reflect variations in regulatory priorities and historical safety research.

One of the clearest contrasts between the two systems is how they interact with public transit. In the U.S., pupil transportation is generally separate from public transportation systems. School buses are dedicated vehicles serving only students. Even in large cities, districts often operate independent fleets rather than relying on municipal transit systems, though some districts do provide older students with transit passes.

In Australia, especially in urban areas, students frequently use public bus, train, or tram systems. Discounted or free student travel passes are common. Rather than maintaining fully separate fleets in metropolitan areas, Australia often integrates students into existing public transport networks.

This integrated approach can increase efficiency and reduce duplication of services. However, it also means that student riders share space with the general public. The American model, by contrast, prioritizes separation and controlled environments for school-aged passengers.

What’s Similar with Pupil Transportation?

Both nations face significant rural transportation challenges due to their size and geography. In the U.S., rural districts may cover hundreds of square miles, with students traveling long distances on highways and country roads. In states such as Montana or Texas long travel times are common.

Australia faces similar challenges, especially in remote outback regions. In some parts of Western Australia or Queensland, students may travel extremely long distances to reach school. However, Australia often applies strict distance-based eligibility rules. Students must live beyond a minimum distance from their nearest appropriate school to qualify for subsidized transportation. Families living closer may be responsible for arranging their own transport.

In contrast, many American districts provide transportation to all eligible students within the district, even if they live relatively close to school. The U.S. model often prioritizes broader access, while Australia’s system focuses on distance-based need.

In extremely remote parts of Australia, boarding schools are sometimes used as a practical solution due to travel distances. While boarding options exist in the U.S., they are far less central to the public education system.

Funding structures also reveal differences. In the U.S., transportation funding varies by state and is often supported by local tax revenue. This can lead to disparities in fleet age and service quality between wealthier and less affluent districts.

---

Related: Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at U.S., Germany
Related: Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and Colombia
Related: Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and India
Related: What Differs Between Pupil Transportation in the U.S. and the U.K.?

---

Australia typically funds pupil transportation at the state level. Many routes are operated by private contractors under government agreements. Rather than school districts owning large fleets, governments often contract services to private bus companies. This contractor-based system requires strong oversight to ensure compliance and safety standards.

The American system uses a mix of district-owned fleets and contracted providers. However, district ownership remains more common in the U.S. than in Australia.

Both countries prioritize safety, but enforcement structures differ. In the U.S., strict stop-arm laws require motorists to stop when a school bus is loading or unloading students. Violations can result in significant fines. This legal framework reinforces the protective environment surrounding the school bus.

Australia does not use the same stop-arm system in most regions. Instead, safety relies more heavily on general road rules, bus signage and public awareness. The American stop-arm system creates a highly visible and enforceable protective zone around students.

Despite these differences, Australia and the U.S. share core principles. Both aim to provide safe, reliable transportation that supports equal access to education. Both must manage long distances, rural isolation and funding constraints. Both rely on regulated driver accreditation and vehicle inspection systems.

The primary differences lie in structure and philosophy. The U.S. emphasizes a distinct, symbolic and highly regulated dedicated school bus system. Australia emphasizes state-level coordination, contractor delivery and integration with public transit.

In the end, both systems reflect national priorities and geography. Whether through the iconic yellow bus traveling down an American suburban street or a state-contracted bus crossing the wide landscapes of the rural Australian Outback, pupil transportation remains a vital link between home and classroom. Each country has developed a model suited to its environment, but both share a common mission: ensuring that distance does not prevent opportunity.

Watch for the next article in this series as we travel to another continent-sized country – Brazil.

---

Bret E. Brooks is the chief operating officer for Gray Ram Tactical, LLC, a Missouri-based international consulting and training firm specializing in transportation safety and security. He is a keynote speaker, author of multiple books and articles, and has trained audiences around the world. He can be reached at BretBrooks@GrayRamTacticalTraining.com.

The post Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at U.S., Australia appeared first on School Transportation News.

U.S. Sen Maria Cantwell, a Washington state Democrat, will register a protest of President Donald Trump’s attempt to exert more control over election infrastructure by bringing her state’s secretary of state, Steve Hobbs, as her guest to the State of the Union Tuesday evening.

Trump has pressured senators to approve a House-passed bill that would require the public to produce a passport or birth certificate to register to vote, involve the federal Department of Homeland Security in elections and disallow universal vote-by-mail that is popular in Washington, Oregon and other states.

Members of Congress often bring guests to the State of the Union to spotlight particular issues and Democrats this year are raising a host of objections to the president’s tariffs program and his immigration crackdown — including a weekslong operation in Minneapolis that resulted in two U.S. citizens’ deaths at the hands of immigration agents — and other issues.

Cantwell told States Newsroom in a phone interview hours before Trump’s address was set to begin that changing election infrastructure could have more long term effects on U.S. democracy than other Trump policies.

“I’m not saying that the tariff issue didn’t have an impact,” Cantwell said. “I’m not saying it’s not horrific that you killed two American citizens who were just trying to express their rights to free speech. But you could upend a lot by changing our election system overnight. I don’t know how you recover from that immediately.”

The Republican bill would amount to nationalizing elections, a contradiction of the Constitution’s provision that states administer elections, Cantwell and Hobbs said.

The framers of the Constitution gave that power to states to protect against the executive branch overreaching, Hobbs said.

The bill would violate that idea, Cantwell said.

“We would be basically saying, ‘It’s okay for a federal leader … and their agency, Homeland Security, to mess around and determine who’s eligible to vote,” Cantwell said. “The reason the separation of powers exist is … so that you didn’t have that federal control, so that people did have faith that they weren’t being manipulated by the federal power.”

The GOP’s championing of the bill follows President Donald Trump’s comments advocating to nationalize elections, a mid-decade campaign to redraw state congressional districts in Republicans’ favor and more than two dozen Department of Justice lawsuits demanding Democratic-led states turn over unredacted voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

Senate rules at risk?

Cantwell’s worries about the bill, known as the SAVE Act, have grown after seeing Trump’s pressure campaign on Republicans, as well as a recent sign of support for the bill from moderate Republican Susan Collins of Maine and comments from the bill’s Senate sponsor, Mike Lee of Utah, about adjusting the chamber’s rules to ensure the bill’s passage.

And Cantwell said she expects Trump to mention the issue during Tuesday’s address.

Under Senate rules and tradition, 60 of the 100 senators must approve a procedural vote to move to final passage of nearly all legislation. With Republicans holding 53 seats, that means bills must have bipartisan support to pass the chamber. 

Lee has said he wanted to tweak Senate rules so that opponents of a bill would have to continuously speak on the floor to block consideration of a bill that would otherwise have the support to pass.

Cantwell said she and Hobbs would seek out opportunities Tuesday evening to bring Republicans to their side of the issue.

“He and I got a busy night tonight,” she said. “We gotta go buttonhole a bunch of Republican senators.”

Noncitizens and voting

Republican supporters of the bill say it will enhance election security and ensure that noncitizens do not vote in U.S. elections.

But noncitizens are already barred from federal elections and instances of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, even in studies by conservative groups.

And the bill presents several provisions that could reduce voter participation, Cantwell and Hobbs said. 

Many Americans do not have a passport or easy access to their birth certificate. Nearly 70 million married women have changed their names, creating an additional barrier to voter registration.

“I don’t think they’re thinking about these things,” Hobbs said.

The bill would also imperil Washington’s universal vote-by-mail system in which every voter is sent a ballot that can be returned through the mail. 

Vote by mail “has nothing to do with partisanship,” Hobbs said. “It’s about convenience of the voter to be able to take the time to choose the people they want to choose. It’s about security, it’s about transparency, it’s not partisanship.”

The system, which for years was popular among Republicans and Democrats for its convenience, became a partisan issue when Trump partially blamed his 2020 election loss on the mail-in voting increase put in place during that COVID-era election.

“We’re here to evangelize that this system has enfranchised people to vote more and have a higher turnout, which is what our goal should be,” Cantwell said Tuesday. “That’s why the League of Women Voters are on our side in this debate and against the SAVE Act, because the whole goal is to have a more participatory government and vote by mail is delivering that.”

Standing on a platform at a Bahnhof or train station in Germany early one morning, watching students filter onto a regional train with backpacks slung over their shoulders, it struck me just how different pupil transportation is here compared to what I have spent most of my career studying and teaching in the U.S. No flashing lights. No crossing arms. No dedicated “school-only” environment. Just students, moving confidently and independently through a public transportation system designed to include them.

In Germany, pupil transportation is not treated as a specialized service owned and operated by schools. Instead, it is understood as a shared civic responsibility. One woven into the fabric of public infrastructure, reinforced by law, education and cultural expectations. The result is a system that looks radically different from the yellow-bus model most Americans know, yet functions with remarkable efficiency and safety.

One of the most noticeable differences I encountered was how heavily Germany relies on public transportation—known broadly as Öffentlicher Personennahverkehr (ÖPNV)—to move students. In cities and suburbs alike, students routinely use Linienbusse (city buses), Straßenbahnen (trams), U-Bahn and S-Bahn systems, and Regionalzüge (regional trains). These are not “student-only” vehicles. They are the same systems used by office workers, retirees and tourists.

Students who qualify for transportation assistance receive a Schülerticket or Jugendticket, subsidized or fully funded by local municipalities (Kommunen) or the federal states (Länder). In many regions, these passes are valid beyond school hours, reinforcing the idea that mobility is part of daily life—not a narrowly defined school function.

As I observed students navigating routes and transfers, it became clear that independence is not optional here. It is expected. Even younger students demonstrate a working knowledge of timetables (Fahrpläne), platform signage and transfer points. This competence does not appear by accident. Verkehrserziehung—traffic and transportation education—is introduced early in German schools and reinforced repeatedly as children grow.

The Differences of U.S. Yellow School Bus Transportation

Back home in the U.S., pupil transportation is far more centralized and tightly controlled. School districts typically operate or contract dedicated fleets governed by extensive regulations at both the federal and state levels. American school buses are marvels of passive safety engineering, built to protect students even in hostile traffic environments. However, this model also ties student mobility to specialized vehicles, specialized drivers and funding streams that are increasingly fragile.

In Germany, the focus shifts away from specialized vehicles and toward system-wide safety design. Around schools, I consistently saw Tempo-30-Zonen. Reduced speed zones enforced not just by signage, but by roadway narrowing, raised crosswalks and visual cues that force drivers to slow down. Fußgängerüberwege (pedestrian crossings) are clearly marked, well lit, and treated seriously by drivers.

Cycling infrastructure is another major pillar. Germany’s Radwege—dedicated bicycle lanes—are often physically separated from vehicle traffic, not merely painted lines on asphalt. Students cycling to school are not treated as anomalies. They are anticipated users of the transportation system.

In the U.S., safety strategies often compensate for infrastructure shortcomings by relying heavily on the school bus itself. Stop arms, flashing lights and strict loading procedures act as mobile safety zones. In Germany, safety is embedded into the environment long before a student ever steps onto a vehicle.

Walking and cycling to school are not fringe behaviors here, rather they are normalized. Younger students often walk together along designated Schulwege (school routes), sometimes participating in what Germans call a Laufbus, the equivalent of a “walking bus.” These routes are mapped, communicated to families, and designed to minimize risk exposure.

Older students routinely travel alone, whether on foot, by bike, or via public transit. While this level of independence might raise eyebrows in the U.S., in Germany it is viewed as a critical developmental step. Children are taught how to assess risk, not avoid it entirely.

Dedicated school buses—Schulbusse—do exist in Germany, primarily in rural regions where public transit coverage is limited. However, even these buses look different from their American counterparts. They are often standard coaches or city buses with minimal external markings. They lack stop arms or specialized lighting systems, reinforcing the notion that responsibility for student safety does not rest solely on the vehicle.

This difference is jarring for American professionals, but it reflects a deeper cultural expectation: All road users share responsibility for safety, and traffic laws are consistently enforced. German driver training standards are rigorous, and compliance with Verkehrsregeln (traffic rules) is culturally ingrained.

Special needs transportation further illustrates Germany’s integrated approach. Students with disabilities receive individualized transportation accommodations arranged through municipal authorities in coordination with social services, not solely through school systems. This may involve specialized vehicles, door-to-door service or escorted travel on public transit depending on need.

Accessibility is treated as a societal obligation rather than an educational exception. In the U.S., special education transportation is often managed almost entirely by school districts, adding complexity and cost to already strained systems. Germany distributes that responsibility across public institutions.

---

Related: Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and Colombia
Related: Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and India
Related: What Differs Between Pupil Transportation in the U.S. and the U.K.?

---

Lessons Learned

Perhaps the most important lesson I took from being in Germany is philosophical. The German pupil transportation system assumes that safety is created through design, education and accountability — not isolation. Students are not shielded from the transportation system. They are trained to function within it.

In the U.S., we often build systems designed to protect students from risk. Germany builds systems designed to reduce risk at its source. That difference matters. Especially as U.S. districts face driver shortages, rising costs and expanding safety mandates.

Germany’s model is not directly transferable to every American community. Many U.S. regions lack the density, transit infrastructure or legal frameworks to replicate it wholesale. Rural geography, suburban sprawl and fragmented governance present real challenges. But the value lies in the comparison.

By studying Germany’s use of ÖPNV, Schulwegplanung (school route planning), Verkehrserziehung, and integrated accessibility models, U.S. transportation leaders can identify concepts—not replicas—that may strengthen our own systems. Infrastructure investment, early safety education, shared responsibility, and multimodal planning all have a place in the American conversation.

Being in Germany reminded me that pupil transportation is not just about moving students. It is about shaping how young people engage with their communities. When transportation is treated as a shared civic responsibility rather than a standalone service, students gain more than a ride. They gain independence, situational awareness and confidence that extends far beyond the school day.

Watch for my next article in this series, where we travel “down under” to explore how Australia conducts pupil transportation.

---

Bret E. Brooks is the chief operating officer for Gray Ram Tactical, LLC, a Missouri-based international consulting and training firm specializing in transportation safety and security. He is a keynote speaker, author of multiple books and articles, and has trained audiences around the world. He can be reached at BretBrooks@GrayRamTacticalTraining.com.

The post Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at U.S., Germany appeared first on School Transportation News.

There is growing attention on the links between artificial intelligence and increased energy demands. But while the power-hungry data centers being built to support AI could potentially stress electricity grids, increase customer prices and service interruptions, and generally slow the transition to clean energy, the use of artificial intelligence can also help the energy transition.

For example, use of AI is reducing energy consumption and associated emissions in buildings, transportation, and industrial processes. In addition, AI is helping to optimize the design and siting of new wind and solar installations and energy storage facilities.

On electric power grids, using AI algorithms to control operations is helping to increase efficiency and reduce costs, integrate the growing share of renewables, and even predict when key equipment needs servicing to prevent failure and possible blackouts. AI can help grid planners schedule investments in generation, energy storage, and other infrastructure that will be needed in the future. AI is also helping researchers discover or design novel materials for nuclear reactors, batteries, and electrolyzers.

Researchers at MIT and elsewhere are actively investigating aspects of those and other opportunities for AI to support the clean energy transition. At its 2025 research conference, MITEI announced the Data Center Power Forum, a targeted research effort for MITEI member companies interested in addressing the challenges of data center power demand.

Controlling real-time operations

Customers generally rely on receiving a continuous supply of electricity, and grid operators get help from AI to make that happen — while optimizing the storage and distribution of energy from renewable sources at the same time.

But with more installation of solar and wind farms — both of which provide power in smaller amounts, and intermittently — and the growing threat of weather events and cyberattacks, ensuring reliability is getting more complicated. “That’s exactly where AI can come into the picture,” explains Anuradha Annaswamy, a senior research scientist in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT’s Active-Adaptive Control Laboratory. “Essentially, you need to introduce a whole information infrastructure to supplement and complement the physical infrastructure.”

The electricity grid is a complex system that requires meticulous control on time scales ranging from decades all the way down to microseconds. The challenge can be traced to the basic laws of power physics: electricity supply must equal electricity demand at every instant, or generation can be interrupted. In past decades, grid operators generally assumed that generation was fixed — they could count on how much electricity each large power plant would produce — while demand varied over time in a fairly predictable way. As a result, operators could commission specific power plants to run as needed to meet demand the next day. If some outages occurred, specially designated units would start up as needed to make up the shortfall.

Today and in the future, that matching of supply and demand must still happen, even as the number of small, intermittent sources of generation grows and weather disturbances and other threats to the grid increase. AI algorithms provide a means of achieving the complex management of information needed to forecast within just a few hours which plants should run while also ensuring that the frequency, voltage, and other characteristics of the incoming power are as required for the grid to operate properly.

Moreover, AI can make possible new ways of increasing supply or decreasing demand at times when supplies on the grid run short. As Annaswamy points out, the battery in your electric vehicle (EV), as well as the one charged up by solar panels or wind turbines, can — when needed — serve as a source of extra power to be fed into the grid. And given real-time price signals, EV owners can choose to shift charging from a time when demand is peaking and prices are high to a time when demand and therefore prices are both lower. In addition, new smart thermostats can be set to allow the indoor temperature to drop or rise —  a range defined by the customer — when demand on the grid is peaking. And data centers themselves can be a source of demand flexibility: selected AI calculations could be delayed as needed to smooth out peaks in demand. Thus, AI can provide many opportunities to fine-tune both supply and demand as needed.

In addition, AI makes possible “predictive maintenance.” Any downtime is costly for the company and threatens shortages for the customers served. AI algorithms can collect key performance data during normal operation and, when readings veer off from that normal, the system can alert operators that something might be going wrong, giving them a chance to intervene. That capability prevents equipment failures, reduces the need for routine inspections, increases worker productivity, and extends the lifetime of key equipment.

Annaswamy stresses that “figuring out how to architect this new power grid with these AI components will require many different experts to come together.” She notes that electrical engineers, computer scientists, and energy economists “will have to rub shoulders with enlightened regulators and policymakers to make sure that this is not just an academic exercise, but will actually get implemented. All the different stakeholders have to learn from each other. And you need guarantees that nothing is going to fail. You can’t have blackouts.”

Using AI to help plan investments in infrastructure for the future

Grid companies constantly need to plan for expanding generation, transmission, storage, and more, and getting all the necessary infrastructure built and operating may take many years, in some cases more than a decade. So, they need to predict what infrastructure they’ll need to ensure reliability in the future. “It’s complicated because you have to forecast over a decade ahead of time what to build and where to build it,” says Deepjyoti Deka, a research scientist in MITEI.

One challenge with anticipating what will be needed is predicting how the future system will operate. “That’s becoming increasingly difficult,” says Deka, because more renewables are coming online and displacing traditional generators. In the past, operators could rely on “spinning reserves,” that is, generating capacity that’s not currently in use but could come online in a matter of minutes to meet any shortfall on the system. The presence of so many intermittent generators — wind and solar — means there’s now less stability and inertia built into the grid. Adding to the complication is that those intermittent generators can be built by various vendors, and grid planners may not have access to the physics-based equations that govern the operation of each piece of equipment at sufficiently fine time scales. “So, you probably don’t know exactly how it’s going to run,” says Deka.

And then there’s the weather. Determining the reliability of a proposed future energy system requires knowing what it’ll be up against in terms of weather. The future grid has to be reliable not only in everyday weather, but also during low-probability but high-risk events such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, all of which are becoming more and more frequent, notes Deka. AI can help by predicting such events and even tracking changes in weather patterns due to climate change.

Deka points out another, less-obvious benefit of the speed of AI analysis. Any infrastructure development plan must be reviewed and approved, often by several regulatory and other bodies. Traditionally, an applicant would develop a plan, analyze its impacts, and submit the plan to one set of reviewers. After making any requested changes and repeating the analysis, the applicant would resubmit a revised version to the reviewers to see if the new version was acceptable. AI tools can speed up the required analysis so the process moves along more quickly. Planners can even reduce the number of times a proposal is rejected by using large language models to search regulatory publications and summarize what’s important for a proposed infrastructure installation.

Harnessing AI to discover and exploit advanced materials needed for the energy transition

“Use of AI for materials development is booming right now,” says Ju Li, MIT’s Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering. He notes two main directions.

First, AI makes possible faster physics-based simulations at the atomic scale. The result is a better atomic-level understanding of how composition, processing, structure, and chemical reactivity relate to the performance of materials. That understanding provides design rules to help guide the development and discovery of novel materials for energy generation, storage, and conversion needed for a sustainable future energy system.

And second, AI can help guide experiments in real time as they take place in the lab. Li explains: “AI assists us in choosing the best experiment to do based on our previous experiments and — based on literature searches — makes hypotheses and suggests new experiments.”

He describes what happens in his own lab. Human scientists interact with a large language model, which then makes suggestions about what specific experiments to do next. The human researcher accepts or modifies the suggestion, and a robotic arm responds by setting up and performing the next step in the experimental sequence, synthesizing the material, testing the performance, and taking images of samples when appropriate. Based on a mix of literature knowledge, human intuition, and previous experimental results, AI thus coordinates active learning that balances the goals of reducing uncertainty with improving performance. And, as Li points out, “AI has read many more books and papers than any human can, and is thus naturally more interdisciplinary.”

The outcome, says Li, is both better design of experiments and speeding up the “work flow.” Traditionally, the process of developing new materials has required synthesizing the precursors, making the material, testing its performance and characterizing the structure, making adjustments, and repeating the same series of steps. AI guidance speeds up that process, “helping us to design critical, cheap experiments that can give us the maximum amount of information feedback,” says Li.

“Having this capability certainly will accelerate material discovery, and this may be the thing that can really help us in the clean energy transition,” he concludes. “AI [has the potential to] lubricate the material-discovery and optimization process, perhaps shortening it from decades, as in the past, to just a few years.” 

MITEI’s contributions

At MIT, researchers are working on various aspects of the opportunities described above. In projects supported by MITEI, teams are using AI to better model and predict disruptions in plasma flows inside fusion reactors — a necessity in achieving practical fusion power generation. Other MITEI-supported teams are using AI-powered tools to interpret regulations, climate data, and infrastructure maps in order to achieve faster, more adaptive electric grid planning. AI-guided development of advanced materials continues, with one MITEI project using AI to optimize solar cells and thermoelectric materials.

Other MITEI researchers are developing robots that can learn maintenance tasks based on human feedback, including physical intervention and verbal instructions. The goal is to reduce costs, improve safety, and accelerate the deployment of the renewable energy infrastructure. And MITEI-funded work continues on ways to reduce the energy demand of data centers, from designing more efficient computer chips and computing algorithms to rethinking the architectural design of the buildings, for example, to increase airflow so as to reduce the need for air conditioning.

In addition to providing leadership and funding for many research projects, MITEI acts as a convenor, bringing together interested parties to consider common problems and potential solutions. In May 2025, MITEI’s annual spring symposium — titled “AI and energy: Peril and promise” — brought together AI and energy experts from across academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations to explore AI as both a problem and a potential solution for the clean energy transition. At the close of the symposium, William H. Green, director of MITEI and Hoyt C. Hottel Professor in the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering, noted, “The challenge of meeting data center energy demand and of unlocking the potential benefits of AI to the energy transition is now a research priority for MITEI.”

© Image: Igor Borisenko/iStock

The Lone Star State, a long-known global energy hub, is emerging as a cleantech capital. A wave of innovation has rolled in, positioning...

The post The Greenest Red State: A Texas-Sized Cleantech Transformation appeared first on Cleantech Group.

On July 8th, Cleantech Group delivered a webinar, Clarity Through Chaos, revisiting the predictions we made at the beginning of the year regarding...

The post One Big Beautiful Bill, 3 Sets of Bold Predictions: Our H2 2025 Outlook appeared first on Cleantech Group.