The midterm elections on November 3 allowed Democrats to gain complete control of Congress, potentially leading to significant political divisions in the U.S. with a Republican president in the White House.
The election outcomes indicate a growing political response to data centers, the massive facilities that support AI operations. Now that Democrats dominate Congress, they may impose new regulations on the locations of these data centers and enhance the influence of local communities over such developments.
Concerns about data centers became a prominent issue across various states during the midterm elections. An exit poll revealed that more than half of voters are apprehensive about AI’s impact, with nearly 80% opposed to data centers being built near their homes. Close to 60% indicated that data centers were a significant factor influencing their voting decisions. Nadine Smith, the CEO of the racial justice organization Color of Change, described the elections as a referendum on “the economic landscape.”
Smith emphasized the importance of national security, referencing an argument from data center advocates about the necessity of these facilities for U.S. military and competitive advantages against global rivals, particularly China. “But it’s just as crucial to consider the families in South Memphis exposed to emissions from gas turbines that power an AI supercomputer,” she added, highlighting a specific facility in Memphis, Tennessee.
In numerous states, voters expressed dissent against the expansion of AI infrastructure, even as pro-AI political action committees invested heavily to influence public opinion. This opposition was most notable in Ohio, where plans for a $500 billion data center backed by substantial financing from Nvidia faced significant local resistance. A county in Ohio recently implemented a ban on data centers, and voters across the state largely rejected propositions supporting such developments.
Experts from Morgan Stanley predict that upcoming Democratic Governor Amy Acton could present further challenges to data center expansion in Ohio. Meanwhile, candidates in states such as Texas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and South Carolina successfully campaigned on anti-data center platforms. Aniketh Koneru, a tech policy researcher, remarked, “It’s clear that financial resources do not guarantee outcomes,” noting that identifying a “local villain” has become an effective tactic in campaigns.
Future actions may include implementing construction moratoriums or mandating that data centers finance their own infrastructure improvements, rather than shifting those costs to local communities. Goldman Sachs anticipates delays in data center development in states like Georgia and Texas due to Democratic gains.
With Democrats controlling Congress, the likelihood of advancing legislation akin to proposals made by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez increases. Their earlier proposal suggested a pause on new data center projects until Congress establishes measures to guarantee that such developments do not lead to higher electricity costs, environmental degradation, or occur without community approval.
Other legislative efforts, such as the GRID Savings Act introduced by Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, aim to prevent local communities from bearing the costs of infrastructure during extensive AI data center expansions. Environmental concerns are particularly pressing at facilities like xAI’s in Memphis and throughout Virginia, known for hosting numerous data centers and utilizing gas turbines for power. Maia Woluchem, a program director at Data & Society, predicts that upcoming changes in energy regulations, land rights, and environmental policies may influence data center expansion, particularly as congressional Democrats investigate the rollback of specific energy protections from the previous administration.
“Regardless of potential federal actions, it’s likely that we will see more initiatives at the state and local level, given the existing grassroots momentum,” Woluchem stated, mentioning that Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa, who advocates for a state moratorium on data centers, exemplifies this trend. Both Hinojosa and Governor Greg Abbott have called for certain restrictions, but Hinojosa built her campaign around opposing data centers, reflecting a critical issue in Texas, which has faced vulnerabilities in its electrical grid in recent years.
Nevertheless, significant challenges remain. Smith foresees potential disputes or executive actions being necessary to navigate obstacles likely posed by Congress. “Even among Democrats, there’s contention surrounding an outright freeze on development,” she remarked, highlighting some party members’ concern that a moratorium might impede AI advancements and hinder national security.
She predicts that AI lobbyists will intensify their outreach to lawmakers. “Democrats campaigned on holding Big Tech accountable,” Smith said. “We must ensure they remain focused on this issue once the media coverage fades.”
The backlash encompasses more than just the physical data centers, which have been around for a while. A private equity executive recently noted that public disdain often stems from frustration toward AI itself, with data centers serving as a representation of community fears and uncertainties regarding the technology. “The results indeed reflect a real frustration towards tech dominance, at the very least,” Woluchem added, emphasizing that this sentiment crosses party lines.
In recent discussions, people have voiced concerns regarding data centers’ environmental implications and the lack of authority in decision-making about these installations.
For instance, Amazon constructed a data center in Gilroy, California, with minimal community awareness, leveraging a decades-old zoning regulation. Outdated or ambiguous zoning laws and regulations requiring local officials to sign nondisclosure agreements have intensified public anger. While tech companies often highlight the economic benefits, like job creation and community initiatives, many residents feel these advantages fall short.
Communities want assurance that they retain a voice in decisions impacting their locality. Many citizens worry that the growth of AI infrastructure may primarily benefit a select wealthy few while their neighborhoods face adverse consequences and rising living expenses.
“If AI infrastructure is genuinely a national priority, then the corporations responsible for its construction should be capable of financing their own power, adhering to clean air regulations, providing transparency about their operations, and securing consent from neighboring residents,” Smith asserted. “Families should not have to subsidize the wealthiest corporations in history through their utility bills.”
