stance

Bryson DeChambeau thought he had finished Day 2 of the British Open in second place and just one stroke off the lead.

He apparently thinks that should still be the case — but it’s not.

After a lenghty, and at times animated, discussion involving DeChambeau, his caddie and officials, the U.S. golfer was assessed a two-stroke penalty that dropped him into a fifth-place tie and three strokes back.

Grant Moir, executive director of governance for The R&A, told reporters that DeChambeau was penalized “for inadvertently improving the area of his … intended backswing on the fifth hole when he was playing his second shot.”

Moir added that the penalty “applies even when the action is accidental, as it was in Bryson’s case.”

DeChambeau sent his tee shot 257 yards but far off to the right into tall fescue grass. He needed to step high to get to the ball but was able to hit it out of the area, eventually making bogey on the par-four hole. That score was later changed to triple-bogey, and DeChambeau officially finished the day at two-under 68.

“The player mustn’t move, bend or break any growing or attached natural object,” Moir said. “A player is allowed to fairly take their stance by taking reasonable actions to get to the ball and take a stance if in some situations that improves the condition affecting the stroke, but when doing so the player must take the least intrusive course of action to deal with the particular situation and is not entitled to normal stance or swing.”

At one point during his discussion with Moir, DeChambeau appeared to state that he might not play the next day. He did not speak with reporters afterward, other than to say he thought he played great and that he was going to hit balls on the driving range.

His agent, Brett Falkoff, said DeChambeau was told he was “not careful enough walking around a sensitive area,” adding that his client “certainly feels he was unfairly penalized.”

Asked if DeChambeau would play Saturday, Falkoff said, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

DeChambeau reportedly stayed out on the driving range until after dark, at times whistling, humming and singing while hitting balls and offering reporters snacks.

Lucas Herbert leads after the second round at eight-under, two strokes ahead of Jackson Suber, Cameron Young and Ryan Gerard.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation to require proposed data centers to provide estimates of their water usage last year, saying he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” without understanding the impact on businesses and consumers.

Opposition to the mammoth tech hubs and their massive thirst of water, power and land has only escalated throughout the state and nation ever since. In just a matter of months, Newsom again could find himself in the political crosshairs.

Several bills to regulate the facilities and increase public transparency on their impacts are progressing in the California Legislature, which could create a conundrum for a governor who has long aligned with the tech industry but also paints himself as an environmental and social justice advocate.

“I think the governor is in a fragile position,” said Megan Mullin, a public policy professor at UCLA. “Tech has been a long backer of his, but at the same time there is this growing national outcry against data centers.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence. The newer centers built to power AI are far larger than their original counterparts and require immense amounts of water and energy.

The facilities also contribute to fossil fuel emissions, with Cornell University researchers estimating last year that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030. Fossil fuel emissions are drivers of climate change and linked to a range of health conditions, including asthma, various cancers and birth defects.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last week that the Trump administration will not set national environmental requirements or recommendations for the data center industry, leaving it to state lawmakers to determine best policies.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said the nation will likely look to the Golden State for guidance.

“California’s laws will create a national model,” he said. “We’re the home of Silicon Valley and we’re just a massive state — the way we regulate data centers will set the tone.”

The political landscape around data centers has since changed since Newsom’s veto in October, said Dan Schnur, a political science professor who teaches at UC Berkeley and USC.

“No one should assume he will automatically act in the same way,” Schnur said. “Newsom is an incredibly savvy politician so he is clearly aware that voters are a lot more upset or concerned about data centers than they were a year ago.”

A Gallup poll released last month found 7 out of 10 Americans oppose data centers being built in their area.

The facilities can create thousands of jobs for construction workers and generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes. The artificial intelligence they power is also — at least temporarily — boosting the stock market, leading to more tax dollars for California.

But residents who live near hyperscale centers have expressed outrage over a range of issues, including health impacts, spiking utility bills, constant noise, dropping water pressure and concerns about potentially losing their land through eminent domain. Meanwhile, community meetings about data centers are growing contentious, with police arresting a farmer in Oklahoma, three women in Wisconsin and a man in California.

Earlier this month, residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.

“Six months ago, politicians of both parties were falling all over each other to bring data centers into their states,” Schnur said. “Now that the public backlash has erupted, they are working just as hard to distance themselves from these projects.”

With Newsom eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, he might be reluctant to brand himself as a defender of an increasingly unpopular industry.

But Schnur said the governor likely also has concerns about angering one of his biggest backers.

“The tech community is a critical part of Newsom’s donor base, so he has to keep fundraising in mind when he makes these decisions,” Schnur said.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to comment on data centers or pending legislation.

Newsom, during an interview at a Center for American Progress conference in May, said the concern that data centers may drive up electricity costs for Californians is a “legit issue,” but not the main one.

“The tech genie is not going to go back in the bottle,” Newsom said. “Just saying that you should not or cannot build a data center is not going to slow this technology down. What can be, will be. Nature of technology. And so we just have to steer it and not make the mistakes we made with social media.”

Among the measures in the Legislature are two bills from Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). SB 886 would create a corporate tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades. SB 887 would ban data centers from receiving ministerial exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

Neither bill picked up support from Republicans, but both cleared the Senate and were recently referred to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

Padilla represents Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico where plans for a 950,000–square–foot data center face fierce opposition from residents. The county exempted the proposal from CEQA, which requires projects to undergo an extensive state environmental review before breaking ground.

The city of Imperial sued the county earlier this year, arguing the project should not have received an exemption. The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club joined the lawsuit last month. The county board of supervisors last week approved a 45-day moratorium on all new data centers to allow the county to evaluate proposed data center development.

Two other data center-related bills recently passed the Assembly, each picking up support from a few Republicans. They now await action from the Senate.

AB 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) would require data center owners to provide an estimate under penalty of perjury about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license. AB 1577 from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption.

Ben Green, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Michigan who is researching how data centers impact communities, said reporting requirements are a “bare minimum” type of regulation, making it especially noteworthy that Newsom vetoed a similar measure last year.

For comparison, several states are weighing more restrictive bills — New York recently sent legislation to the governor’s desk that would enact a one-year moratorium.

“It seems that there was a ton of lobbying pressure that he was getting,” Green said. “The tech industry doesn’t want to have any restrictions.”

Green said data centers could be a hot topic in upcoming elections, as Americans on both sides of the aisle are expressing valid concerns.

“There’s not an easy fix for getting the public on board with data centers because their critiques are grounded in reality,” he said. “This is not just some sort of reactionary NIMBY-ism or pearl clutching.”

Beijing warmly welcomes the peace agreement and memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, considering it an important step toward de-escalating regional tensions. China supports the diplomatic path to resolving the crisis, based on a clear strategy aimed at protecting its economic and strategic interests. Beijing emphasizes that a permanent ceasefire, the protection of national sovereignty, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and ensuring the safety of international navigation are top priorities. China contributed behind the scenes to shaping the negotiating framework and influencing Tehran to accept the agreement with the United States in order to safeguard its vital interests in the continued flow of Iranian oil. Accordingly, China officially welcomed the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, affirming that the agreement represents a crucial step toward de-escalating regional tensions. The Chinese diplomatic welcome focused on the key provisions of the agreement, as stated by the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry. These provisions guarantee a comprehensive ceasefire, freedom of navigation, energy security, an end to the naval blockade, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global trade and energy supplies. China considers this essential for its energy and economic security. This agreement, along with the nuclear framework and negotiations, marks the conclusion of the first phase, followed by a 30-60 day negotiation period to discuss the Iranian nuclear program (uranium enrichment and the lifting of sanctions). This Chinese announcement came in support of international mediation efforts ahead of the official signing ceremony in Geneva.

The most prominent points welcomed by China in the US-Iranian agreement, according to announcements and follow-up by Chinese diplomatic channels and as included in the key provisions of the memorandum of understanding, were a cessation of military operations; an immediate and permanent ceasefire on all fronts, including the Lebanese front; freedom of navigation through a commitment to end the naval blockade and open the Strait of Hormuz to global trade and energy supplies; and the nuclear framework, with the conclusion of a phase one agreement stipulating that negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program (uranium enrichment and sanctions relief) would take place within a specified timeframe of 30 to 60 days following the signing.

China has played a pivotal, often unacknowledged, role as a diplomatic bridge between Tehran and Washington to protect its strategic and economic interests in the Middle East. The dimensions of China’s behind-the-scenes role include ensuring the flow of energy. Beijing seeks to maintain stability in the Gulf region to guarantee the uninterrupted supply of Iranian oil and to protect its interests and investments in the Belt and Road Initiative. Iran represents a crucial geographical and strategic hub in China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. To this end, Beijing has sought to leverage its strong economic ties and strategic partnership with Tehran to persuade it to make flexible concessions during critical times, while offering support to avoid military escalation. Beijing fears that the collapse of diplomatic channels could lead to a regional war that would jeopardize its extensive investments in the region.

On the other hand, Beijing seeks to counterbalance American influence. China prefers a negotiated framework between Tehran and Washington that limits American unilateral hegemony and positions itself as a responsible international player capable of peacemaking. China’s vision for diplomatic balancing between Washington and Tehran is shaped by several key strategic axes, most importantly (establishing the principle of a political settlement). Here, Beijing consistently emphasizes that dialogue is the only solution to the Iranian crisis, rejecting military escalation that harms the security of navigation and global trade. This is coupled with regional and international networking, where China supports parallel diplomatic efforts, such as Pakistani mediation. Beijing maintains continuous communication with the parties to the crisis to ensure the opening of indirect negotiation channels that prevent a full-scale confrontation and safeguard vital interests. China has maintained the flow of Iranian oil while simultaneously strengthening its extensive economic partnerships with the Gulf states, granting it unique diplomatic weight and influence that Western powers lack. Despite this notable progress, Beijing faces ongoing challenges due to US containment policies. China rejects Washington’s classification of its major technology companies as military entities and threatens retaliatory measures, making Beijing’s attempts to create a strategic balance with the United States an extremely delicate and sensitive process.

Based on the preceding understanding and analysis, we can see how successful Beijing has been in transforming escalating tensions in the Middle East into strategic gains. China has played an active mediating role by supporting diplomatic talks and the memorandum of understanding for peace between Washington and Tehran, thus positioning itself as a responsible international power seeking to establish stability and move away from unilateral hegemony.

German Trade Minister Katherina Reiche is travelling to China from Tuesday to Friday as Berlin’s trade deficit with Beijing continues to deepen.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The trip comes two days after several of the EU’s largest economies – France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, as well as Lithuania – issued a non-paper urging the EU to crack down on Chinese overcapacity and unfair trade practices.

Berlin, however, did not endorse their call.

Germany remains the main chokepoint in the EU’s strategy towards China. While Euronews previously reported that the publication late last year of Germany’s trade deficit with Beijing marked a turning point for the EU executive, which is trying to sharpen its trade defence tools, Germany continues to favour cooperation with the Chinese.

In March, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for a trade agreement with Beijing. Brussels pushed back against the idea.

“There are a number of concerns and real challenges that the European Union has consistently expressed to China that we need to see them meaningfully address before we can even talk about any future agreements or anything like that,” the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, Olof Gill, said at the time.

Even with a record €87 billion trade deficit with China, Berlin hopes Beijing will keep its market open to German industry, despite the obstacles faced by EU businesses in China and the Asian giant’s strategy of reducing its dependence on foreign products.

Access to China’s market

The main objective of Reiche’s visit this week is to discuss potential economic cooperation. According to the German government, the strategy is to explore future opportunities for collaboration while maintaining dialogue with the Chinese leadership.

Despite a steadily growing trade deficit, China remained Germany’s most important trading partner in 2025. According to the Federal Statistical Office, bilateral trade volume reached €250 billion. Around 5,200 German companies operate in China, making the country one of the most important foreign markets for Germany’s automotive, mechanical engineering and electrical industries.

During the trip, Reiche is expected to hold political talks, attend a business forum and visit local companies. She will be accompanied by a business delegation representing around 40 companies. Discussions are also set to focus on the development of energy technologies.

“We hope the visit will help to transfer the insights gained on the ground into the political discussion in Berlin and to further develop bilateral exchange,” said Oliver Oehms, Executive Director of the German Chamber of Commerce in China.

In a survey published in May by the chamber, 51% of German companies operating in China supported policies favouring partnerships with Chinese companies, while 42% backed the “strategic” use of knowledge gained through such partnerships.

But these sectors are also increasingly under pressure, as Chinese competitors benefit from extensive state subsidies.

According to a report published in May by the EU think tank Centre for European Reform, the growing concentration of global car, machinery and chemicals production in China could weaken innovation in traditional manufacturing hubs and increase Beijing’s leverage over Berlin through the threat of supply disruptions, similar to its blockade of rare earth exports in 2025.

The report added that demand generated by Germany’s fiscal stimulus after easing its debt brake could end up boosting Chinese imports rather than supporting Berlin’s domestic industry.

German exports to China fell by 9.7% year-on-year, while imports of Chinese goods such as electronics, electric vehicles and components rose significantly by 8.8%.

“China has already eaten much of German industry’s lunch and is preparing to start on dinner,” the report said.

Barnes & Noble was turning a page on the chain’s history of declining sales, but recent comments have stirred bad blood for the bookseller.

James Daunt, the chief executive credited with breathing new life into the retailer, is clarifying the store’s stance on stocking its shelves with AI-written books.

The controversy stems from Daunt’s Monday appearance on “Today” with Jenna Bush Hager. In a viral clip from the interview, Daunt said, “I have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn’t masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn’t. So, as long as an AI-written book says it’s an AI-written book, then we will stock them.”

By Wednesday, thousands of calls to boycott the bookseller had flooded social media.

Kathlin Finn, a writer and former employee of the chain, posted on social media, writing, “Hey Barnes & Not Noble, I worked for you and have supported you, but your latest AI decision is extremely disappointing. I will not be shopping or promoting B&N unless you change your AI policy.”

Author Cristin Bishara wrote, “As an author this [is] the most depressing news. I’ve been saying for a long time that this was coming. People told me I was overreacting. And I had a feeling it would start with a cute round table at the front of a B&N.”

Another social media user added, “The Barnes & Noble CEO saying they’ll stock AI generated books as long as they’re labeled and aren’t ‘ripping off somebody else’ is wild considering all generative AI is ripping off someone else.”

Daunt told The Times that the wave of backlash is based on misinterpretations of what he said, and that only a “highly edited version” of what the bookseller “actually said” had been aired.

In an emailed statement, he said the bookseller does not sell AI books, “as far as we are aware.” Barnes & Noble “demand[s] that publishers label any books that are AI generated,” and the chain takes “active measures to exclude all AI generated books.”

Daunt further stated that Barnes & Noble “will sell AI generated books if there is clear demand” and not “ban reputable books published by reputable publishers, even if AI generated, should these be published, labeled and there be clear evidence of customer demand.”

He also said that the retailer thinks it’s “very unlikely” that there will be customer demand for AI-generated books or that reputable publishers will publish them.

“The argument is nuanced, and perhaps over nuanced, but there are important principles that have to be balanced and I believe we do so as sensibly and thoughtfully as is possible,” he said. “Book banning is a clear and present danger, so we are very careful with demands to ban any books” while also remaining vigilant “not to sell AI generated books that masquerade to be by real authors.”

Last year, Daunt spoke with BBC on the issue of AI in publishing and bookselling and said that there’s a huge proliferation of AI-generated content, and “most of it is not books that we should be selling.” He told the broadcaster that, as a bookseller, the company sells what publishers publish and that he’d be surprised by efforts to put forth an “AI-generated piece of nonsense” but that, ultimately, the decision on reading material would lie with the reader.

“We don’t dictate, and we don’t dictate around politics or any other particular issues around books,” he said. “We leave it up to the reader to decide.”

In June 2025, more than 70 authors issued a call to action to big-five publishers Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, and Macmillan, asking the companies to pledge that they will never release books that were created by machines. Authors Lauren Groff, R.F. Kuang, Emma Straub and Emily Henry were among the petitioners.

“At its simplest level, our job as artists is to respond to the human experience. But the art we make is a commodity, and our world wants things quickly, cheaply, and on demand,” the letter read.

“We are rushing toward a future where our novels, our biographies, our poems and our memoirs — our records of the human experience — are ‘written’ by artificial intelligence models that, by definition, cannot know what it is to be human. To bleed, or starve, or love. …

“Every time a prompt is entered into AI, the language that bot uses to respond was created in part through the synthesis of art that we, the undersigned, have spent our careers crafting. Taken without our consent, without payment, without even the courtesy of acknowledgment.”

In March, Hachette pulled “Shy Girl” from publication after widespread allegations that the horror novel appeared to be AI-generated and was swiftly scrubbed from Amazon and the Hachette website. The book’s author, Mia Ballard, denied that she had relied on AI to pen the book but said an acquaintance she had hired to edit the novel used AI.

“Hachette remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling,” a Hachette spokeswoman said, per the New York Times.