Every year, without fail, the US experiences at least one major disruption in air travel due to severe weather, government shutdowns, software outages, or power outages—you name it.

Right now, a partial government shutdown has meant that thousands of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers have not been paid for several weeks, causing many to call out of work or quit. That has meant long security lines—more than three-hour waits—ensuing chaos at airports around the country. It’s unclear how long this mess will last, so it’s worth thinking about other options.

Flights are also expensive and hard on the environment. If you can take a bus, train, or ferry to your destination, why shouldn’t you? These travel search apps help you find routes and prices so you can compare them and make the best decision.

Wanderu

Best for Buses and Trains in the US and Canada

In the US and Canada, Wanderu is my go-to search aggregator for travel by bus or train (it works in Europe and the UK, too). Wanderu is your classic travel aggregator, looking up the schedules and prices across several bus and train operators, including Amtrak, BestBus, Flixbus, Greyhound, OurBus, Peter Pan, RedCoach, Vamoose, and others.

You see price comparisons at a glance, as well as options for upgraded class fares, departure and arrival times, and the location of each bus and train station, since sometimes you can save a lot of time by choosing one point over another. Filters help you narrow down your results based on your preferences, and you can book right from the app.

Omio

Compares Trains, Buses, Flights With Excellent Summaries

If you aren’t sure whether you want to travel by land or air, head to Omio. Type in your departure point, destination, and the date you want to travel, and Omio finds routes by plane, bus, and train. A concise summary at the top of the search results tells you the lowest fare and how long it will take for each mode of transportation, so you can make an informed decision quickly. Omio also shows whether the fare will be higher or lower if you travel on a different day of the same week, in case your dates are flexible.

Rome2Rio

Includes Comparison for Driving

Rome2Rio compares prices and times for travel by bus, train, flight, and driving yourself, based on estimated fuel costs. It works reasonably well for trips in the US and Canada. Rome2Rio touts itself as being for worldwide travel, though Europe and the UK seem to be its sweet spot. Elsewhere, take the approach of “trust, but verify,” and this app will take you places.

Virail

Compares Buses, Trains, and Flights

Virail is similar to Omio, comparing travel options by train, bus, and flight, with a neat summary of prices at the top of the search results, although it lacks the total travel time. For that, you have to scroll through the results. To book a ticket, Virail sends you to other websites, and you might have to do additional legwork to reserve your seat. It works reasonably well in the US and Canada (in testing, it got a little tripped up in Mexico), and does well for travel in Europe and the UK.

Vivanoda

Includes Flight and Carpool

Vivanoda (website only, no app) is similar to Omio, comparing all your options for getting between two points—and it includes flights, ferries, and carpool/rideshare options when applicable. The site operates out of the European Union and seems to work slightly better for travel in Europe and the UK than in the US and Canada, where it has some holes. (It didn’t find a direct flight between San Francisco and Vancouver, for example, even though there is more than one daily.)

Seat 61

Best Old-School Site for Trains and Bus Info Worldwide

Seat61, also known as The Man in Seat 61 (website only), has an old-school look and some of the best, most reliable information about traveling by bus and rail all around the world. Mark Smith, who runs the site, tells you exactly where in the world he knows about the train and bus routes: The site lists all the countries it covers on the left side, everywhere from Albania to Zimbabwe. He shares timetables, prices, and even includes photos, though his site is not a search aggregator, and you do have to go elsewhere to book. That said, it’s an excellent resource.

Anthropic won a preliminary injunction barring the US Department of Defense from labeling it a supply-chain risk, potentially clearing the way for customers to resume working with the company. The ruling on Thursday by Rita Lin, a federal district judge in San Francisco, is a symbolic setback for the Pentagon and a significant boost for the generative AI company as it tries to preserve its business and reputation.

“Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk’ is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” Lin wrote in justifying the temporary relief. “The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.”

Anthropic and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests to comment on the ruling.

The Department of Defense, which under Trump calls itself the Department of War, has relied on Anthropic’s Claude AI tools for writing sensitive documents and analyzing classified data over the past couple of years. But this month, it began pulling the plug on Claude after determining that Anthropic could not be trusted. Pentagon officials cited numerous instances in which Anthropic allegedly placed or sought to put usage restrictions on its technology that the Trump administration found unnecessary.

The administration ultimately issued several directives, including designating the company a supply-chain risk, which have had the effect of slowly halting Claude usage across the federal government and hurting Anthropic’s sales and public reputation. The company filed two lawsuits challenging the sanctions as unconstitutional. In a hearing on Tuesday, Lin said the government had appeared to illegally “cripple” and “punish” Anthropic.

Lin’s ruling on Thursday “restores the status quo” to February 27, before the directives were issued. “It does not bar any defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it” on that date, she wrote. “For example, this order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.”

The ruling suggests the Pentagon and other federal agencies are still free to cancel deals with Anthropic and ask contractors that integrate Claude into their own tools to stop doing so, but without citing the supply-chain-risk designation as the basis.

The immediate impact is unclear because Lin’s order won’t take effect for a week. And a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, has yet to rule on the second lawsuit Anthropic filed, which focuses on a different law under which the company was also barred from providing software to the military.

But Anthropic could use Lin’s ruling to demonstrate to some customers concerned about working with an industry pariah that the law may be on its side in the long run. Lin has not set a schedule to make a final ruling.

President Donald Trump and top defense officials are reportedly weighing whether to send ground troops to Iran in order to retrieve the country’s highly enriched uranium. However, the administration has shared little information about which troops would be deployed, how they would retrieve the nuclear material, or where the material would go next.

“People are going to have to go and get it,” secretary of state Marco Rubio said at a congressional briefing earlier this month, referring to the possible operation.

There are some indications that an operation is close on the horizon. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon has imminent plans to deploy 3,000 brigade combat troops to the Middle East. (At the time of writing, the order has not been made.) The troops would come from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, which specializes in “joint forcible entry operations.” On Wednesday, Iran’s government rejected Trump’s 15-point plan to end the war, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president “is prepared to unleash hell” in Iran if a peace deal is not reached—a plan some lawmakers have reportedly expressed concern about.

Drawing from publicly available intelligence and their own experience, two experts outlined the likely contours of a ground operation targeting nuclear sites. They tell WIRED that any version of a ground operation would be incredibly complicated and pose a huge risk to the lives of American troops.

“I personally think a ground operation using special forces supported by a larger force is extremely, extremely risky and ultimately infeasible,” Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, tells WIRED.

Nuclear Ambitions

Any version of the operation would likely take several weeks and involve simultaneous actions at multiple target locations that aren’t in close proximity to each other, the experts say. Jonathan Hackett, a former operations specialist for the Marines and the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells WIRED that as many as 10 locations could be targeted: the Isfahan, Arak, and Darkhovin research reactors; the Natanz, Fordow, and Parchin enrichment facilities; the Saghand, Chine, and Yazd mines; and the Bushehr power plant.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Isfahan likely has the majority of the country’s 60 percent highly enriched uranium, which may be able to support a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, though weapon-grade material generally consists of 90 percent enriched uranium. Hackett says that the other two enrichment facilities may also have 60 percent highly enriched uranium, and that the power plant and all three research reactors may have 20 percent enriched uranium. Faragasso emphasizes that any such supplies deserve careful attention.

Hackett says that eight of the 10 sites—with the exception of Isfahan, which is likely intact underground, and “Pickaxe Mountain,” a relatively new enrichment facility near Natanz—were mostly or partially buried after last June’s air raids. Just before the war, Faragasso says, Iran backfilled the tunnel entrances to the Isfahan facility with dirt.

The riskiest version of a ground operation would involve American troops physically retrieving nuclear material. Hackett says that this material would be stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas inside “large cement vats.” Faragasso adds that it’s unclear how many of these vats may have been broken or damaged. At damaged sites, troops would have to bring excavators and heavy equipment capable of moving immense amounts of dirt to retrieve them

A comparatively less risky version of the operation would still necessitate ground troops, according to Hackett. However, it would primarily use air strikes to entomb nuclear material inside of their facilities. Ensuring that nuclear material is inaccessible in the short to medium term, Faragasso says, would entail destroying the entrances to underground facilities and ideally collapsing the facilities’ underground roofs.

Softening the Area

Hackett tells WIRED that based on his experience and all publicly available information, Trump’s negotiations with Iran are “probably a ruse” that buys time to move troops into place.

Hackett says that an operation would most likely begin with aerial bombardments in the areas surrounding the target sites. These bombers, he says, would likely be from the 82nd Airborne Division or the 11th or 31st Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). The 11th MEU, a “rapid-response” force, and the 31st MEU, the only Marine unit continuously deployed abroad in strategic areas, have reportedly both been deployed to the Middle East.