The midterm election results on November 3 granted the Democratic Party complete control of Congress, paving the way for a potentially polarized U.S. government in the coming decade, with Republicans occupying the White House. The outcomes from Tuesday indicate that public discontent regarding data centers—large facilities that support artificial intelligence (AI) operations—is emerging as a significant political issue. With Democrats now holding the reins in Congress, there may be new restrictions on the locations of data centers and the extent of influence local communities can exert over them.
Data centers have become a pivotal topic in various states during the elections. An exit poll conducted by NBC revealed that a majority of voters harbor concerns about AI: over half of the respondents believe AI poses more risks than benefits, and nearly 80% oppose the establishment of data centers in their neighborhoods. Furthermore, almost 60% indicated that data centers were a crucial or significant factor influencing their voting decisions. Nadine Smith, the president and CEO of the racial justice organization Color of Change, characterized Tuesday’s election as a referendum on “who this economy is built for.”
“National security is important,” Smith stated, referencing a common argument from proponents of data centers who assert that such infrastructure is vital for maintaining U.S. superiority in military and geopolitical contexts, particularly in relation to China. “The families in South Memphis who are inhaling exhaust from the gas turbines powering an AI supercomputer matter too.” (She was alluding to xAI’s data center located in Memphis, Tennessee, which relies on gas turbines for energy.) Voters across several states expressed resistance to the expansion of AI infrastructure, despite substantial financial backing from pro-AI super PACs aimed at influencing their decisions during the midterm elections.
The backlash against data centers was notably pronounced in states like Ohio, where OpenAI has proposed a $500 billion data center, supported by over $100 billion in funding from Nvidia. In fact, the Ohio county that was set to host a 700,000-square-foot facility from Meta recently enacted a ban on data centers, while local communities statewide overwhelmingly rejected measures to facilitate data center development. Analysts at Morgan Stanley anticipate that the newly elected Democratic governor, Amy Acton, will pose a significant challenge to the expansion of data centers in Ohio.
In other states, candidates in Texas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and South Carolina secured victories after advocating against the rapid proliferation of data centers. “It is evident that financial resources do not guarantee electoral success,” remarked Anshi Bhatt, a researcher specializing in technology and policy, noting that in contemporary politics, identifying a “local villain” can effectively generate campaign momentum. Likely subsequent actions may include imposing construction moratoriums or mandating that data centers finance their own power grid upgrades rather than transferring those costs to surrounding communities. Goldman Sachs has predicted that delays in data center construction will occur in states like Georgia and Texas due to Democratic gains.
The Democratic majority in Congress may also enhance the prospects for legislation similar to the one introduced earlier this year by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although any such proposal could face a potential veto. This legislation seeks to impose a nationwide moratorium on new data centers until Congress establishes additional regulations to ensure that their development does not escalate electricity costs, harm the environment, or proceed without community consent. Additionally, there are proposals like the GRID Savings Act, introduced by New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich, which aims to prevent the costs of grid infrastructure from being passed on to communities during large-scale AI data center developments.
The environmental implications are a significant concern, particularly regarding xAI’s data center in Memphis and the numerous data centers in Virginia, recognized as the global hub for data centers, where gas turbines are utilized for energy. Maia Woluchem, program director at Data & Society, a nonprofit research organization, believes that modifications to energy regulations, land rights, and other environmental policies could influence the expansion of data centers, especially as congressional Democrats investigate the Trump administration’s rollback of specific energy protections, as reported by the New York Times.
“Regardless of federal initiatives, I foresee further developments at the state and local levels, given the grassroots momentum that has been building,” Woluchem continued, pointing to governor-elect Gina Hinojosa, who advocates for a statewide moratorium on data centers, as an example. Both Hinojosa and Governor Greg Abbott have called for certain limitations, but Hinojosa has focused much of her campaign on opposing data centers, a significant stance in Texas, whose electrical grid has demonstrated vulnerabilities over the past decade. However, the most challenging phase may still lie ahead. Smith, for instance, anticipates a contentious struggle, or even additional executive orders, to circumvent what Congress is likely to obstruct. “Even among Democrats, a blanket freeze is contentious,” she noted, referring to some Democrats’ concerns that a moratorium could hinder AI advancement and jeopardize national security. She also foresees AI lobbyists beginning to engage with lawmakers.
“Democrats campaigned on holding Big Tech accountable,” Smith stated. “Our responsibility is to ensure they remember this once the cameras are gone.” The backlash extends beyond the physical structures themselves, which are not a novel concept. A private equity executive recently remarked that public sentiment is not necessarily against data centers, but rather against AI, suggesting that data centers have become a proxy for widespread fears and anxieties regarding the technology. “The election results appear to reflect a genuine frustration with the power of technology, at the very least,” Woluchem observed, highlighting that this is a bipartisan concern.
In recent weeks, individuals have expressed worries about the environmental impact of data centers and their lack of agency in the decision-making process regarding their construction. For instance, Amazon established a data center in Gilroy, California, with minimal community awareness, complying with a 45-year-old zoning regulation. Ambiguous or outdated zoning laws, coupled with requirements for local officials to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that prevent them from discussing data center projects, have only intensified public outrage regarding the expansion. Data centers have also benefited from billions in tax incentives, and while many tech companies have highlighted advantages such as job creation and community initiatives, for numerous individuals, these benefits have not sufficed. People desire assurance that they retain a voice in decisions affecting their communities. Many are also apprehensive that AI developments will primarily enrich a select few affluent individuals while their communities endure hardships and rising living costs. “If AI infrastructure is genuinely a national priority, then the companies responsible for its construction should be able to finance their own energy needs, comply with clean air regulations, disclose their energy sources, and engage with the consent of local residents,” Smith asserted. “Families should never be subsidizing the wealthiest corporations in history through their utility expenses.”
