Recent weeks have brought red flag after red flag for investment in AI and the related data center boom. Bond yields soared for AI infrastructure giant CoreWeave, a sign that investors view the buildout as increasingly risky. And Meta’s reporting of negative free cash flow for the quarter to fund its infrastructure buildout while saying it might need to raise even more capital to fund its AI buildout not only hit its own stock but contributed to a price decline across the big tech companies. 

These developments raised questions across Wall Street about whether too much is being spent too quickly on data center expansion. How questions over data center investment play out has big implications for how companies and investors approach the future of energy and, by extension, climate. A pullback in the pace of new data centers could ease pressure to build fossil generation, but it would also weaken the commercial case for clean energy technologies that need big, reliable buyers who are willing to pay a premium for power.  

Most obviously, a dent in the AI buildout would translate directly into a slowdown in related electricity demand growth. In advanced economies like the U.S., data centers will account for 20% of that growth through 2030. By then, data centers are expected to account for 3% of global electricity demand, according to data from the International Energy Agency. 

Some climate advocates may initially rejoice at slowing electricity demand. Even as renewable energy expands, grids around the world still rely on fossil fuels. In the U.S. in particular, AI demand has sparked a wave of building new natural gas infrastructure. In the short term, slowing demand would mean lower emissions from the existing system than today’s baseline assumptions and less investment in new natural gas infrastructure. 

But a slowing data center build out leaves less mature technologies at risk. From advanced geothermal to new ways of producing nuclear power, big tech companies have been willing to pay more to lock in reliable power sources, thereby accelerating the market for these new efforts. Even unproven technologies like nuclear fusion have received a big financial boost from tech firms speculating that they might help solve their power challenges and give them a competitive leg up in the AI race. In a tighter financial environment with lower projected electricity demand, both the incentive and the financial capacity to make bold bets diminish. 

To be clear, data centers are not the only source of growing electricity demand. New manufacturing continues to create the need for power. The need for air conditioning has ramped up in many emerging markets, particularly in the Global South, creating new grid pressures. And electric vehicles continue to take off in many markets outside the U.S. 

Even as gas remains resilient, much of the power built to meet demand will come from clean sources, including and especially solar and battery storage. Solar is increasingly cost competitive. And this year’s spike in fuel prices—particularly natural gas—has made local power more appealing. But the companies behind growing sectors like air conditioning and EVs are less involved in local power systems and lack the capital to really shape them like the world’s wealthiest tech companies have. In short, clean energy will take a hit without the backing of big tech.  

It’s too soon to tell whether, in the long run, this week’s AI infrastructure recalibration will be a blip in time or part of a much broader realignment. But it’s something that anyone invested in clean energy and climate should be watching closely.   

Not content with renaming an international gulf and a cross-border lake, on Oct. 10, U.S. President Donald Trump recently floated the idea of renaming the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean as “Trump Ocean” or the “Ocean of the Americas” at a political rally in Clarksville, Tenn. 

“We need an ocean. So, I was thinking of either the Atlantic or the Pacific,” he said to laughter and applause. “We call it ‘Trump Ocean’ or ‘Ocean of the Americas,’ something like that.”

Then, at an Oct. 21 rally in South Carolina, Trump said he asked Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, to rename the Atlantic Ocean on Google Maps. According to Trump, Pichai replied, “Please don’t ask us to do that.” 

“So, I'll probably pass,” Trump said. “I think let's keep it the Atlantic Ocean.”

While Google has not issued a formal statement on the matter, Trump’s obsession with naming places for himself or America is remarkable. In our view, it reflects a textbook case of “toponymic narcissism”—the use of place naming to remake the world in one’s own image. 

Let’s not fool ourselves: Trump knows a thing or two about branding. In fact, his business career has largely revolved around marketing the Trump brand on hotels, golf courses, and even golden sneakers. We shouldn’t be surprised to find him following the same playbook in his second presidential term. 

Yet the world map is not a private real estate development. Nor can place names be reduced to a branding exercise. Place names have a greater civic purpose as shared global symbols that should transcend the personal glorification and political interests of any individual leader.

Place names form part of our intangible cultural heritage with cultural significance that will outlive the cartographic whims of President Trump. They shape our geographical imaginations and the way people perceive and understand the world. Geographical naming also has important consequences for education, international relations, and the types of messages we wish to project to the world.

For instance, it is notable that Trump has focused much of his renaming energy on places with Indigenous names, such as Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, this could also be seen as an attempt to erase an etymology that points through Greece to North Africa. The name derives from the Greek for “Ocean of Atlas,” referring to the mythology of a giant who lives in the Atlas Mountains of northwestern Africa.

As place name scholars, we have spent decades studying the cultural, social, and political aspects of place naming. There is a long history of political leaders and cartographers using place naming to assert raw power by rewriting the world map. In one sense, Trump’s renaming shenanigans are simply the latest flashy example in this broader story of mapping and politics. 

But Trump is not merely renaming places to project American power on the world stage. He is also making a mockery of the very act of place naming itself—and, along with it, the international norms that inform the map-making process. 

The international community must reaffirm its commitment to respecting the cultural value of place naming and to articulate responsible place-naming principles, especially for geographical features that are shared across international borders. In an open letter co-authored with place name experts around the world, we propose five key principles for responsible place naming:

The first principle is recognizing that place names are culturally significant forms of intangible heritage and shared resources whose stewardship carries responsibilities extending beyond the interests of any particular government, leader, institution, or generation. 

Given the cultural significance of place names, our second principle highlights the need for meaningful public participation in place naming decisions. Place names that are changed arbitrarily and without due process should not be recognized by the international community. 

Thirdly, place names should not be used to proclaim cultural superiority, advance territorial ambitions, or assert exclusive national ownership over geographical spaces shared among different peoples. 

Places should generally not be named for living people. Instead, place naming should serve the public interest rather than promoting the personal legacies of those seeking to commemorate themselves as a form of self-aggrandizement.

Lastly, we recognize that a shared geography need not always have a single name, since multiple place names can bear witness to the layered histories, languages, and attachments through which places acquire meaning. However, this recognition should not extend to condoning the unilateral renaming of shared geographic features without international dialogue among affected countries and communities.

If Trump moves forward with attempting to rename the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, the international community should stand united in rejecting this attention-seeking act of cartographic malpractice and defend the cultural value of place naming as a cornerstone of our shared world map and geographical imagination.

President Donald Trump has invoked a Cold War-era law in an effort to boost oil production and lower energy prices.

In a presidential memorandum issued Thursday, Trump determined that petroleum production, refining, and related activities are essential to national defense under the 1950 Defense Production Act. The determination follows Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency in January 2025.

“Ensuring resilient domestic petroleum production, refining, and logistics capacity is central to United States defense readiness,” the memo reads. “Without immediate Federal action, United States defense capabilities will remain vulnerable to disruption.”

The memo comes as the price of gas and diesel has soared across the country amid supply disruptions caused by the U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran. Brent crude futures rose 1.2% to $114.47 a barrel early Friday, extending gains after Thursday hit a five-month high. U.S. diesel pump prices averaged $6.32 a gallon, slightly higher than Thursday but below the September record, according to AAA. The high energy prices, and related inflation, have become a defining issue for voters in the coming midterm elections.

Here’s what to know.

What does the memo mean for energy production?

The memo means that energy production shortfalls are seen as a national defense risk.

The memo invokes Section 303 of the Defense Production Act, a law that allows the federal government to intervene in private industry for national defense. Section 303 allows the President to make purchases, purchase commitments, provide financial support and equipment, and expand production through other measures.

The memorandum also removes certain Section 303 requirements through an emergency waiver, including ordinary congressional notification and authorization constraints.

While the memo does not specify which projects could be funded, Vice President J.D. Vance said last week that the Administration would use the Defense Production Act to expand capacity at a Delek U.S. Holdings-owned refinery in Texas.

Without taking action, the memo said, U.S. industry would be unable to provide sufficient energy services in a “timely manner due to constrained financing, long lead times, permitting and infrastructure bottlenecks, and supply ​chain limitations.”

Has the Defense Production Act been invoked before?

Enacted during the Korean War, the Defense Production Act was first used to expand domestic industries in critical materials, such as aluminum and titanium, for national defense.

Section 303 of the act was also used during the pandemic to fund domestic production of medicines and vaccines. Former President Joe Biden also invoked the statute to support clean energy manufacturing and supply chains, including minerals used in electric vehicle batteries and the production of of energy-efficient heat pumps and insulation.

In April, more than a month after Iran began disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for U.S.-Israeli Feb. 28 strikes, Trump invoked the act to declare petroleum, natural gas, coal, electricity grid, and other energy infrastructure essential to national defense. Citing April’s natural gas determination, the Department of Energy on Monday committed up to $42 million to advance the proposed Constitution Pipeline linking Pennsylvania and New York. The department also announced up to $50 million last week for transmission upgrades in Virginia and West Virginia, citing April’s grid determination.

Last year, Trump signed legislation providing $1 billion for Defense Production Act activities, including energy projects deemed critical to national security.

Trump’s use of Section 303 of the act for fossil fuel projects has drawn criticisms from environmentalists, with the Center for Biological Diversity calling the April memoranda, which waived congressional notification, “unlawful.” Nevertheless, the statute expressly includes energy production and construction in its definition of national defense.

How else has Trump tried to lower energy prices?

The Trump Administration has pursued a number of other measures aimed at lowering energy prices since the Iran War began. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order temporarily expanding access to tax-exempt dyed diesel, which is typically reserved for off-road farm and construction vehicles. The Group of 7 countries, including the U.S., also agreed to release 100 million barrels of diesel and crude oil reserves to the world over four months.

In August, the Administration extended the Jones Act waiver for another 90 days, allowing foreign-flagged ships to transport oil and certain other commodities between U.S. ports.

Trump also announced an agreement with Putin earlier this month to import diesel from Russia, alongside temporary sanctions relief. The deal has faced significant backlash from lawmakers.

For many of these measures, industry analysts and stakeholders have said the reduction in energy prices is likely to be limited and possibly short-lived. Analysts estimated that the Jones Act waiver was expected to reduce gasoline prices by only pennies per gallon. Capital Economics economist Hamad Hussain said the reserve release could lower diesel prices temporarily, but would not resolve the underlying supply crunch. And analysts warned that the dyed diesel measure would have a limited effect on most consumers since the tax-exempt fuel isn’t widely available at ordinary commercial pumps. A Council on Foreign Relations analysis also suggested that damaged Russian refining capacity may make a near-term effect of the Russia deal on diesel markets unlikely, although Trump said the agreement would supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to U.S. and global markets immediately.

Meanwhile, oil exports from the Middle East topped prewar levels last week, marking a rebound in regional oil shipments despite continuing security risks. Ships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz, however, still face attacks from Iran, while the Bab el-Mandeb Strait near Yemen has been threatened by the Houthi rebels. Analysts previously told TIME in June that the risk of further attacks and damage to facilities could delay a full-scale recovery.

Thursday’s memorandum could support investment in fuel capacity, but it’s uncertain how quick or measurable an effect it will have on energy prices. Gas prices still depend heavily on globally traded crude, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, although they can be influenced by domestic refining and distribution conditions. The U.S. was the largest crude producer globally last year, averaging 13.6 million barrels of crude a day.

Analysts warned, after the April memorandum, that federal support would not necessarily translate into immediate price relief.

“Until the pipes are in the ground and the fuel is flowing or transported, it may not be able to be called a true structural shift,” Cyrus Brooks, director of marketing at energy research firm RBAC, wrote in April.

Still, Brooks said of the April action that federal recognition of energy as important to national security could support important infrastructure investment, potentially relieving a bottleneck in domestic fuel production, refining or transportation.

“Energy security seems to be the brightest neon sign flashing,” he wrote. “Not because it’s everything, but because nothing works without it.”

Governors have no shortage of ideas about how to improve education. But before deciding what to change, they need an honest answer to a more basic question: How are our students doing?

That sounds simple. It isn’t.

We governed Tennessee at different times and from different political parties. But we learned the same lesson: you cannot improve what you are unwilling to measure honestly.

Governors will get the chance to see how students in their state are doing in a critical,often-overlooked subject: civics. But they have to sign up by the end of January to get state-level results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress civics assessment, also known as the Nation’s Report Card, or NAEP. 

For newly elected governors, that will mean making a quick decision shortly after taking office. It shouldn’t be a hard one, though. 

U.S. students get limited instruction, particularly in early grades, about how our government works, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and how to apply civics knowledge beyond the classroom. Governors can help change that by prioritizing and measuring what students know and can do in civics.

What we know now is limited but concerning: only 1 in 5 eighth graders in U.S. schools reached the NAEP Proficient level on the most recent Nation's Report Card in civics, meaning the vast majority of students likely struggle to identify the separation of powers and checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution.

Unlike in subjects like reading and math, we don't have state-specific information about how our own students are doing compared to students in other states in civics. That puts leaders at a disadvantage when trying to improve schools and communities and help young people develop the civic knowledge and skills they need to excel academically, in the workforce, and in their communities. 

But beginning in 2028, if they meet the January deadline, states can get state-specific results in eighth-grade civics rather than just national averages. Tennessee's academic progress over the past two decades serves as an example of why all states should capitalize on this opportunity. In 2007, Tennessee’s extremely low Nation's Report Card scores in reading and math, which contradicted our own state assessment results, served as a wake-up call. Our state got to work raising K-12 expectations, increasing the rigor of our end-of-year state tests, and improving classroom practices. 

The strategy worked: Between 2011 and 2015, Tennessee became the fastest-improving state on NAEP. And progress continues. Recently, for the first time, the state ranked in the top quarter of states for reading and math achievement.

This is why we believe NAEP is a particularly valuable tool. It’s considered the gold standard in assessments and is the only common yardstick that measures student learning across the country. It lets us know whether students today are doing better or worse than kids in those same grades did two years or two decades ago and how students in our state are doing compared to other states. 

We didn't always have the benefit of state-level NAEP results. NAEP didn’t produce any state-specific data at all until the 1980s, when Tennessee joined other southern states in a pilot program to determine whether valid state results could be obtained from NAEP data. That paved the way toward a federal requirement 25 years ago that results for all 50 states in 4th- and 8th-grade reading and math be reported publicly.

That was a win for states and kids. But today, we have to ask ourselves, what about those other essential things that children learn in school besides reading and math? 

States now have an opportunity to answer that question in civics. We hope they'll take it. We know from experience how valuable it is to have an honest, independent measure of how students are doing. Good policy requires good information. And good leadership requires being willing to confront what that information tells us.