RealClearPolitics
중도 성향
기타
Saving California Wouldn't Be Difficult
California's decline is no mystery: decades of one-party rule have turned America's golden state into a warning about the costs of ideological governance.
🇺🇸 미국 · "GOVERNANCE" · 총 16건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 12,224건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 1건(0.0%)·중립 12,222건(100.0%)·부정 1건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 19.4(중도 균형)입니다.
California's decline is no mystery: decades of one-party rule have turned America's golden state into a warning about the costs of ideological governance.
The more Epstein-connected directors a company had, no matter its size, the more likely it was to have governance problems.
Trump's instant-satisfaction style of governance spells trouble for ending the war.
The polls ahead of California's jungle primary for governor Tuesday show Republican Steve Hilton will likely secure one of two spots on the November ballot following his insurgent campaign to turn the state around and end years of liberal governance.
Children born after 2013 are the first generation to grow up fully immersed in digital systems, which weren’t designed with them in mind. One‑third of the world’s Internet users are younger than 18, according to UNICEF, yet these systems shaping their daily lives were built for adults. They were optimized for engagement and designed long before people understood how profoundly digital environments influence children. For engineers and technical professionals, online safety is not an abstract policy debate. It is a design challenge that demands rigor, systems thinking, and ethical foresight. Governments around the world are also beginning to recognize the problem. Policymakers from across Australia, Brazil, the European Union, Indonesia, and the United States are responding to risks engineers have long understood: Addictive features, inappropriate content, opaque data practices, and algorithmic systems shape user behavior in ways that their creators did not fully predict. For years, technology moved faster than governance. Now governance is trying to catch up. Global Shift Toward Design Reform Supporting National Digital Ambitions In Athens this year I met with senior leaders of Greek government agencies and key national research institutions. Greece is moving quickly on digital transformation and responsible technology governance, and our discussions reinforced IEEE’s role as a trusted, neutral collaborator. We focused on supporting Greece’s ambitions in digital modernization and public‑sector innovation. We also discussed responsible AI and age-appropriate digital design in Europe and elsewhere. These engagements, grounded in shared values and long‑term commitment, strengthened IEEE’s presence within the European ecosystem and opened new pathways for collaboration on trustworthy AI and child‑focused digital well‑being. The European Union and the United Kingdom have been among the first to act, embedding age‑appropriate digital design into their broader children’s rights agenda. Drawing on IEEE expertise and global best practices, Indonesia is the first country in Asia, and Brazil is the first country in Latin America, to adopt age-appropriate design regulation. Australia is aiming to limit access to harmful content and addictive design features through age restrictions on certain platforms. And in the United States, in addition to federal efforts, states including California, New York, and Utah are enacting approaches including age-appropriate design principles. Across these efforts, a shared realization is emerging. Protecting children online is not simply about filtering content or adding parental controls. It requires rethinking the architecture of digital systems regarding how data is collected, how algorithms make decisions, how interfaces influence attention, and how AI interacts with the developing minds of young users. Engineers and technical professionals understand that design choices are never neutral. They encode values, incentives, and assumptions. When the user is a child, those choices carry greater weight. This is where IEEE’s work becomes more essential. Protecting Children Online For more than a decade, IEEE has been building technical and ethical foundations for safer digital experiences. The first IEEE standard on age-appropriate design in 2021 marked a turning point. It offers a structured, principled approach to designing with children’s rights in mind. The Institute’s 2022 article “Use a New IEEE Standard to Design a Safer Digital World for Kids” highlights how the standard helps translate those principles into engineering practice. Today the IEEE Standards Association’s (SA) Trustworthy Digital Experiences portfolio provides a practical, technically grounded framework for governments and industry. Spanning ethical design, data governance, algorithmic transparency, and child‑focused digital well‑being, it has already initiated discussions with government stakeholders around the world. This work helps bridge the gap between engineering realities and policy ambitions. No single country can solve these challenges alone. Many policymakers lack access to the combined expertise in technology, governance, and children’s rights needed to act quickly and effectively. This collaborative effort helps close that gap. The stakes are high. Without coordinated action, public policy will continue to lag behind technology, leaving children exposed to risks that could have been mitigated through thoughtful design. But with the right frameworks, governments can ensure digital systems respect children’s rights, support healthy development, and promote well‑being. IEEE’s emerging standards and collaborative technology policy work offer a path forward. By grounding national efforts in evidence‑based, rights-aligned design principles, IEEE is helping governments move from reactive regulation to proactive, coherent, and globally informed strategies for protecting children online. Safeguarding childhood in the digital age is both a moral imperative and an engineering challenge. And IEEE is helping to lead the way. —Mary Ellen Randall IEEE president and CEO Please share your thoughts with me: president@ieee.org. This article appears in the June 2026 print issue.
Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters is a free woman after being released from a Colorado correctional facility on Monday, ending a dark chapter of weaponized, partisan governance in the Centennial State. Her release comes after Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis succumbed to relentless pressure from the White House, ultimately commuting her absurdly punitive sentence. ...
A Harvard fellow and former financial intelligence chief argues the right model for AI governance isn't nuclear arms control — it's the global framework that brought down ISIS financing.
Comments
Comments
BP’s ousted chair has hit back at the group’s decision to fire him over governance issues, launching a robust defence of his short-lived tenure on the supermajor’s board and rejecting the “false narrative” surrounding his sudden departure. In a move poised to plunge the London-listed energy giant into a full-blown governance crisis, Albert Manifold defended his record as chair, and said he drove “genuine change at BP – cutting costs, challenging excess and holding the organisation to higher standards”.…
Most executives treat AI governance like a future agenda item. That is the most dangerous mistake they can make — and the window to fix it is closing.
BP's board on Tuesday announced the removal of Manifold due to "serious concerns" relating to governance standards, oversight and conduct.
Balderton Capital leads funding for London-based startup from Darktrace and Snyk vets taking on AI agent governance offerings from Microsoft, ServiceNow, and OpenAI
This article is adapted by the author with permission from Tech Policy Press. Read the original article. South Africa is not just another developing country struggling to govern artificial intelligence; it is the exception with leverage, and the window to act on it is closing. It holds approximately 88 percent of global platinum-group metal reserves, critical inputs to parts of the semiconductor and data-center supply chains that make AI infrastructure possible. It hosts the largest data-center market on the continent. Its existing hyperscaler relationships give it procurement leverage that most African states will never have. And a major geopolitical contest over AI infrastructure is being fought on its soil right now, between Chinese and American technology companies competing for control of the systems that will underpin an entire continent’s public sector. In physics, leverage requires three things: a fulcrum, a lever arm, and the ability to apply force. The Bushveld Complex, the world’s largest platinum-group metal deposit, is the fulcrum: a mineral endowment that gives South Africa a position in the semiconductor supply chain that no other African state holds. The since-withdrawn draft policy is the lever arm. The unresolved “OPTION” provisions in the policy are where force would be applied. Without a policy that specifies what South Africa wants in return for market access, the lever arm sits unused, and the weight of two of the world’s largest technology ecosystems settles exactly where those ecosystems want it to settle. This makes South Africa a global test case. Not because its proposed means of governance is exemplary, but because it is the one developing country with enough structural leverage to negotiate genuinely different terms, and the one that is choosing, through inaction, not to. The recent announcement of a new panel to update the draft policy is an important opportunity. But the deeper failure is not that an AI policy contained bad references. It is that no verification process caught them before the document entered the public domain. That is a systems problem, not merely a political one. It points to a missing layer in how governments are adopting AI. The contest already underway Last year, Huawei pitched an emerging-product bundle to tech executives across the continent. Huawei was now bundling access to DeepSeek’s large language model with its own cloud and storage infrastructure. The price differential was stark—in some cases by more than 90 percent. At the same time, Microsoft announced plans to spend ZAR 5.4 billion ($300 million) by the end of 2027 on cloud and AI infrastructure in South Africa, building on a prior ZAR 20.4 billion investment. Google, Amazon Web Services, and Oracle already have cloud regions in the country. According to one analysis, the country’s data-center market was valued at US $2.16 billion in 2024, the largest in Africa. These are not commercially neutral investments. Huawei’s infrastructure reach has been explicitly linked to Chinese strategic objectives, including a documented track record of providing governments with surveillance infrastructure through its Safe Cities network. U.S. hyperscaler investment comes with its own dependency structure: closed models, pricing set unilaterally, and terms of access that no African government has meaningfully shaped. South Africa is being asked to choose between these dependency models without a policy that specifies what it wants in return. The leverage it has There is a particular irony in South Africa’s position. The country whose mines supply platinum-group metals essential to semiconductor manufacturing, and through them to AI compute, has drafted a policy that treats it as a consumer of AI systems rather than a stakeholder in their governance. South Africa digs up the minerals that make AI possible. It has no say over the AI built from them. The AI triad framework covers algorithms, compute, and data. South Africa has no frontier model development capacity. South Africa holds significant data assets in financial services, health care, and agriculture, with no clear framework for their sovereign management. South Africa possesses PGM (Platinum Group Metals) leverage of global significance on the compute axis, currently being transferred without meaningful condition. It also has exceptionally high solar irradiance and significant renewable-energy potential. A country that can offer both critical mineral inputs and the energy to power the infrastructure those minerals help build occupies a negotiating position of unusual strength. The Draft Policy proposes no minimum terms for hyperscaler investment, no data sovereignty requirements, no technology transfer conditions and no compute visibility mechanism. Multiple provisions are explicitly left unresolved, marked “OPTION,” including the most consequential choices about how governance will function. Infrastructure decisions made now determine what is renegotiable later, and the answer is: very little. Three futures, one default The three infrastructure futures on offer each create a structurally different form of dependency, and only one creates sovereign capability. The Huawei-hosted DeepSeek integration offers low cost and open-source weights, but with data stored on infrastructure potentially accessible under Chinese legal frameworks, creating surveillance dependency in a pattern already documented across Africa. The second is U.S. closed-model dependency: higher capability, more reliable data protection, but complete API dependency on developers abroad. The third is locally hosted open-weight infrastructure: models governed under South African data-sovereignty rules, on infrastructure subject to minimum terms, developed with South African data. As Nathan Lambert at Interconnects has observed, open-weight models are likely the only realistic way to get sovereign AI off the ground as a real effort, enabling local communities and economies to integrate meaningfully with the technology. But this requires procurement conditions, not goodwill. What binding governance looks like The GovAI “Governing Through the Cloud” framework identifies four roles compute providers should accept as conditions of operating at scale: securers (protecting model weights and training data), record keepers (maintaining infrastructure usage logs), verifiers (confirming customer compliance with safety standards) and enforcers (restricting access when violations occur). These are operational requirements, not theoretical categories—specific, enforceable, and well within the bargaining power of a market of South Africa’s size and mineral position. A detailed policy analysis submitted to the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) identifies the specific provisions the final policy must contain: mandatory minimum terms for foreign compute infrastructure investments above ZAR 500 million (~$30 million); a compute reporting threshold; a National AI Safety Institute mandate covering defensive monitoring of AI capability accumulation; and National AI Champion Sector designations to create data assets for domestic model development. Each provision converts a structural advantage into a governance instrument before that advantage is foreclosed by market reality. Just as modern software security increasingly depends on knowing what components are inside a system—model provider, training data, compute environment, evaluation methods, update cadence, human review points, and failure-reporting procedures—public-sector AI governance requires a clear account of the stack before deployment, not after a problem surfaces. A public institution that cannot verify the sources in its own AI policy is unlikely to be ready to verify the AI systems it procures, deploys, or regulates. Why this is the continental test case South Africa’s choices will establish a regional precedent for what is commercially negotiable in AI infrastructure. If South Africa negotiates data-sovereignty guarantees and technology-transfer conditions as requirements for hyperscaler investment, it creates a replicable model. If Microsoft’s $300 million investment and Huawei’s infrastructure expansion proceed on standard commercial terms, as they are currently, it normalizes extractive AI infrastructure across the continent. The lesson is not specific to Africa. Governments everywhere are producing AI strategies while lacking AI assurance infrastructure. South Africa is an early warning, not an isolated case. The public comment period closed when the policy was withdrawn. But a parallel process remains live: the National Treasury’s Draft General Public Procurement Regulations—the legal instrument that will govern every government AI contract—closes for comment on June 15. Those regulations contain no AI-specific provisions. South Africa has more AI leverage than any country on the continent. Some argue, with force, that governance requirements risk deterring the infrastructure investment South Africa urgently needs: compute capacity, reliable energy, venture capital, and talent retention. That concern deserves a direct answer. Minimum procurement terms, compute reporting thresholds, and technology transfer conditions are not barriers to investment. They are the conditions under which investment serves the host country rather than extracting from it. Infrastructure built without minimum terms produces dependency. Infrastructure built with them produces leverage. To serve the public interest, its AI policy must use it. When late last month News24 reported AI-hallucinated references in the draft AI policy, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi withdrew the draft policy. That was a mistake that could cost South Africa and the rest of the continent the initiative on this urgent issue. His more recent constitution of an independent panel is a belated step in the right direction, if it can turn South Africa’s leverage into policy. The panel—chaired by Professor Benjamin Rosman of the Wits Machine Intelligence and Neural Discovery Institute, and including Professors Vukosi Marivate and Alison Gillwald of Research ICT Africa and Dr. Jabu Mtsweni of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research—has the technical and governance credibility to produce a stronger document. What it has not yet produced is a timeline. No revised draft has been scheduled. South Africa remains without a formal AI governance framework in the interim.
Patients who use mobile applications to manage medical conditions including depression and chronic pain might assume the apps have been evaluated by regulatory agencies to be safe and effective. But that isn’t necessarily the case. Most of the more than 55,000 medical apps that claim to diagnose or treat a condition—or ones that provide clinical decision support, known as “therapeutic” apps—have never been assessed by any trusted neutral bodies or regulatory agencies to evaluate them for technical soundness, ethical design, or clinical benefit. The apps often don’t comply with regional data security and privacy laws to protect people’s sensitive health information. Medical apps differ from traditional wellness apps, which provide users with insights into becoming healthier by, for example, tracking fitness activities, monitoring blood pressure, and analyzing sleep patterns. There is no reliable way to verify that therapeutic apps deliver the results they indicate. To help ensure such apps are credible, the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) recently launched the IEEE Global Medical Mobile App Assessment and Registry. The publicly searchable directory is designed to list apps that have been vetted by experts across several criteria including technical soundness, ethical design, compliance with data security and privacy regulations, and clinical efficacy, which is evidence of a clinical benefit for the patient. “Patients, clinicians, payers, and health care systems often struggle to distinguish clinically meaningful therapeutic apps from those that are simply well-marketed,” says IEEE Senior Member Yuri Quintana, chair of the assessment and registry program. He is chief of the clinical informatics division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Boston. “Our goal is to establish a standardized review method using criteria developed by experts.” Why regulation is lacking Because the apps are intended for medical use without being part of a medical implement, they fall under the designation of software as a medical device (SaMD), according to the International Medical Device Regulators Forum. SaMD is supposed to be regulated by public health agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but the apps have developed and grown in popularity so quickly that regulators haven’t been able to keep up, Quintana says. Some companies have received approval, but most have not, he says. Many users are unaware of the regulatory gap, he says. “Seeing an app from a well-known company often creates the impression that it has been meaningfully vetted for safety and efficacy, even when that is not the case,” he says. Some companies are using deceptive advertising to sell their product, he adds. Marketing materials might claim that all of a company’s health apps are certified, even though only one app has been approved by a regulatory body to treat a particular condition. Or the verbiage might imply the company has clinical evidence proving its application works, even though the app has never been tested independently. Another concern is that updated apps aren’t being vetted, says Maria Palombini, IEEE SA’s director of health care and life sciences global practice lead. “The original app might have received approval from a regulatory agency, but not the updated version,” Palombini says. “There could have been significant changes from the original.” “Not every medical-related app triggers the same regulatory classification or review across jurisdictions,” Quintana adds. “That leaves a large gray zone of clinically relevant but lower-risk apps that haven’t undergone an independent assessment. The IEEE registry was created to help fill these gaps. “IEEE is the best organization to address this problem because this is fundamentally a standards, trust, interoperability, and conformity assessment challenge,” he says. IEEE “is the world’s largest technical professional organization, with deep expertise in developing globally recognized standards including in health care, cybersecurity, AI ethics, and interoperability.” “Through the IEEE Conformity Assessment Program, we already run rigorous assessment and registry programs,” Palombini says. “Our neutral, consensus-driven, multidisciplinary approach—bringing together clinicians, regulators, developers, and ethicists without commercial bias—makes IEEE uniquely positioned to create trustworthy global guardrails that can scale across jurisdictions and support regulatory harmonization.” How the registry works The assessment framework was developed by a multidisciplinary group of 35 volunteer experts from 10 countries, Quintana says. The panel includes academics, AI experts, app developers, clinicians, ethicists, mental health experts, patient advocates, regulators, researchers, technologists, and those who assess safety in health care. The registry is for any app used for clinical care or therapeutics that claims to demonstrate a medical benefit. That includes apps designed for cardiology, diabetes, mental health, neurology, oncology, rehabilitation, and respiratory diseases, Quintana says. Initially, he says, the focus will be on apps that aim to treat mental health conditions, given the large number of offerings in that area and the registry committee’s expertise. The submission of apps is voluntary. There is no government mandate that requires a company to use the IEEE registry. The products will be evaluated against about 150 consensus-based criteria across three major areas: Clinical efficacy including therapeutic effectiveness, any sustained benefits, risk management, comparison to standard care, user engagement, and real clinical value. Technical soundness including accessibility, privacy and security, error handling, interoperability, AI governance, usability, and operational quality. Ethical design including bias prevention, patient consent, data governance, conflict-of-interest transparency, responsible use of AI and large language models, and prioritization of public health benefits. IEEE charges a nonrefundable submission fee that covers the cost of the assessment plus the registry’s annual subscription for the first year. Developers first must demonstrate they are a legally established entity before they can complete the app publisher registration form and then submit documentation and attestations about the product. The IEEE review of an app is estimated to take six to eight weeks, Palombini says. The assessment results will be privately shared with the app publisher, she says, and to be listed in the registry, an app must achieve more than 85 percent compliance in each category. Upgraded apps must be submitted and reassessed, Palombini says. Similar to how users are notified when an app on their smart devices has , the registry will be notified when listed apps have a new update available, she says. Applicants who do not pass the assessment are to receive feedback explaining why. They will be given an opportunity to make changes or provide additional documentation, Palombini says. “It’s a pretty methodological process, with checks and balances,” Quintana says. “We’re being very transparent about the process.” Approved apps added to the registry receive an IEEE certification badge and submission identifier, which the company can display on its website, app store listings, and marketing materials. “The badge serves as visible proof that the app has met the independent, consensus-based assessment for clinical value, technical robustness, and ethical design,” Quintana says. The registry will be publicly available at no cost, he says. Patients and families seeking safe, trustworthy apps—and payers and insurers evaluating reimbursement potential—will find the registry helpful, he says. The application website is open. The public registry page does not yet list a specific count of approved apps because assessments are ongoing. Approved apps and their unique identifiers are to be published when the initial reviews are completed. To learn more, you can watch a webinar recorded in March. The assessment framework that underpins the registry is supporting the formal recognition of IEEE P3962 Standard for Criteria Assessment Framework f
China’s diplomats are on an “AI governance” offensive. At a May 5 United Nations meeting, China’s vice minister of science and technology championed China’s role in shaping U.N.-led frameworks that determine how the technology should be built and used. Just a week earlier, two top Chinese AI experts actively involved in Beijing’s governance efforts appeared by video on a Capitol Hill panel discussion hosted by Senator Bernie Sanders, touting China’s contributions to AI safety and cooperation.Norms and standards on AI development and applications are still being defined. Being a standards-setter rather than a standards-follower can simultaneously solidify a country’s technological The post China’s AI Governance Offensive Threatens U.S. Tech Leadership appeared first on War on the Rocks.