This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Mounting evidence shows that Republican voters are rapidly turning against artificial intelligence.

The data center backlash is causing a crisis of faith amongst American conservatives over land use, energy abundance, and corporate regulation. The Republican Party — not to mention the politics of AI infrastructure — may never be the same.
In the last week, I’ve seen a surge of Republican politicians pushing to temporarily ban data centers in conservative states. In South Carolina, Representative Nancy Mace, a leading GOP gubernatorial primary candidate, called for a statewide moratorium on new data centers. In Texas, the sitting agriculture commissioner Sid Miller proposed the same for the Lone Star State. Ditto in North Dakota where the idea got backing from a GOP primary candidate for a Public Service Commission seat.
I also witnessed a wave of anti-data center sentiment bursting forth online over the last few weeks. Major figures in the online right like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson have been posting videos lambasting the pace and practices of the data center boom, joined by a flood of commentary on YouTube and conservative video platforms like Rumble. On X and Facebook, the right has split into factions with figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene siding with activists while other pundits and personalities play data center defense, mocking critics as misinformed and antithetical to free market conservatism.
“Right now, frankly, anti-AI politics, anti-data center politics, that’s working for some people in some campaigns,” right-wing pundit Scott Jennings said Wednesday on his Salem News Channel show in a discussion with Republican Senator Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, one of the biggest AI boosters in Congress.
Conservative and GOP-aligned political and policy advisers told me all of this ruckus is a lagging indicator for genuine anger amongst their voters. “It’s a collision between the Republicans’ traditional pro-business identity and a new populist identity,” Chris Wilson, CEO of political data firm EyesOver, told me in an interview Wednesday. “The old Republican consensus would’ve been pretty straightforward. The challenge is you have this emerging Republican electorate asking who owns this? Who is consuming it? Who is it going to benefit?” Wilson previously founded GOP polling firm WPA Intelligence.
It’s all in the data, pun intended. On Friday, GOP pollster Frank Luntz posted about this anxiety over data center development spreading to “regions led by both Democrats and Republicans.” Luntz pointed to a new Gallup poll confirming a trendline we reported in February using Heatmap Pro data: Opposition to data centers in GOP areas rose more than 300% over the previous six months.
Other recent data points make it obvious Trump Country is turning against data centers, such as in New Jersey, where a Stockton University poll found nearly half of Republican voters would support a data center ban “in the town where they live.” Meanwhile, new analysis out of Houston University in Texas found roughly 45% of Republicans in that city’s metro area would oppose a data center within a mile of their home.
Let’s be honest, here — those are approaching offshore wind-levels of abysmal support.
“The fact the polling has changed so negatively so quickly has shown there is very real concern, very real worry about what these data centers are doing and how they affect a region,” said Will Reinhart, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Reinhart admitted that with the way winds are blowing, there may be a “very real” possibility that a major 2028 Republican candidate for president supports a national data center moratorium. The fact Florida Governor and 2024 candidate Ron DeSantis has been so critical of data center development “is a bellwether.”
“I would imagine there’s going to be more support for [moratoria], especially as energy prices are going to continue to rise. To me it feels like this is coming. What this portends for a larger electorate is you’ll have a push and pull. You’ll have some regions that want to see development and know they can benefit from a data center. Some regions are going to say no, we don’t want this.”
This level of profound opposition threatens to disrupt what was once Republican political consensus behind land use policy and energy development. Plainly, even once catnip for the GOP like a fossil-friendly permitting approach could face political hurdles in the future if Republican voters don’t want pipelines to power the largest driver of new energy demand.
Perhaps it’s understandable then why so many figures on the Right are coming to defend data centers. The leading counterargument? Data center opponents are agitators armed with misinformation and backed by foreign governments trying to undermine American dominance in artificial intelligence. Pro-AI advocates are seizing on the idea, as is Shark Tank magnate Kevin O’Leary (with lackluster results). Conservative energy pundits in D.C. are asking GOP lawmakers to investigate whether foreign funding is playing a role in the backlash. It’s even endorsed by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who said last week at a conference in Alaska that some of the opposition was funded by “foreign-sourced dark money.”
“I worry about us on the Build Baby Build where we’re still running into this thing where there are some states that are literally passing bans on AI data centers,” Burgum said, “and it’s not organic and local.”
When it comes to swaying skeptical members of the public, blaming outsiders for local conflicts over energy and tech infrastructure development is unlikely to work. The past is very much prologue here; some Republicans have long argued — with scant evidence — that foreign adversaries and wealthy Europeans are quietly puppeteering the American environmental movement. But we’ve never seen the national discourse ever pick up the topic, really. Meanwhile, we all know this strategy never really worked when defending solar farms from opposition in rural areas.
Republican energy politics strategist Chris Johnson told me that ironically, the solar and wind fights of recent years laid the groundwork for openness to conspiracies about technology as well as “muscle memory built for NIMBYism, to fight against anything.”
“There has to be this much more empathetic effort to meet people where they’re at,” Johnson said, adding he believes the conflicts over solar and farmland became an example of a “mistake” that wound up undermining other GOP priorities.
“The overemphasis on solar’s land use and the imagery of farmland being taken by solar panels like a scene out of Blade Runner, that is not helpful when you’re now seeing an environment with such tremendous growth in energy demand,” he told me. “I think it was a mistake for folks on the right to go so hard against some technologies we clearly need right now.”
All this being said, all hope is not lost for the right-coded AI and data center optimists out there.
David Blackmon, a longtime lobbyist for oil and gas based in Texas who writes about energy for The Daily Caller, told me how this backlash reminded him of the fracking boom of the 2010s. Perhaps famously to those in oil and gas, scares about water and air pollution from fracking were plentiful throughout that era, typified by the film Gasland — specifically a viral segment from the film involving flammable water from a faucet. The fracking boom ran through rural and often conservative-leaning towns and counties, and Blackmon remembers companies were “pretty close to losing our license to operate” in major parts of the shale patch “because of the ham-handed way we handled communications and public outreach.”
“This pretense that all the opposition to their projects is somehow bussed in from other places, or amounts to astroturf, is the down-playing of real, valid public concerns that are raised related to their projects,” he said. “The data center industry, at least in a few high profile cases, has really made a mess of things. It’s a lack of understanding of the industry. The case hasn’t been effectively made at a national level, or a local level. Why is this big industrial complex being plopped down?”
Blackmon and many others in conservative political circles believe the pathway to regenerating support for data centers rests in effectively communicating local benefits. The Rainey Center, another right-leaning D.C. organization, shared new polling with me that shows educating voters about policies like President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge makes them overall more likely to support AI data centers. “The public isn’t opposed to data centers, they’re opposed to paying for them on their power bill,” Hunt told me. “The industry’s social license is being written right now.”
This is also how some Republican AI and data center optimists in Congress seem to think.
Speaking with Scott Jennings on his show Wednesday, Dave McCormick expressed his belief data centers can be “economic engines.” But he, too, stressed that data center developers should fulfill a “covenant” with the communities hosting them.
“When these data centers come to town, they need to bring more energy than they use. So they should lower energy prices, not raise them. They need to have water recycled so it’s a closed-loop system. They need to make commitments on what they’re going to bring to the tax base. They need to promise to use local workers. I think if that covenant is in place most communities are going to opt in,” McCormick said. “But there’s a lot of disinformation, a lot of lies out there about it. And frankly the Chinese are behind a lot of it, Scott. ”
So where does this leave us? I believe we’ll see more Republican-led counties, states, and congressional offices back restrictions of some kind on data centers, as well as new rules and regulations on the burgeoning sector’s energy and water impacts. Whether the GOP’s traditionally business-friendly orthodoxy is permanently fissured by the data center backlash is yet to be determined. But we might be about to see a Republican race to a populist top on this issue — or bottom, depending on where you’re sitting.
“If they’re just pro data centers, that’s a problem,” Wilson, the GOP pollster, told me. “If they’re pro-AI, that idea is still politically safe, and it’s safer than being anti-growth or anti-technology. You don’t want to be perceived that way as a Republican.” Republican voters will still be supportive of AI competitiveness, beating China, domestic infrastructure, and lower energy bills, he said. But they’ll be skeptical of taxpayer subsidies for data centers, straining on energy and water supplies, secrecy around data center deals, or use of eminent domain.
“Vulnerabilty emerges when support for data centers is perceived as support for big corporate interests over local control,” Wilson concluded.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct Wilson’s title.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.
The local government of Boulder City, Nevada had previously rejected a proposal for the computing facility, which would draw power from the existing electricity supply.
The U.S. government for the first time approved a data center on federal lands. What the Trump administration is pitching as a demonstration of bureaucratic speed and ambition in the era of artificial intelligence, however, is turning into the same sort of mysterious backroom deal that’s upsetting other communities.
On Monday, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it would allow a large AI data center to be built on a plot of federal land technically within the limits of Boulder City, Nevada. The approval was initially granted as a right-of-way in 2023 for the second phase of a solar project known as Townsite Solar, to be built by a joint venture between Skylar Opportunities LLC, a subsidiary of Houston energy trader Bill Perkins’ investment firm, and renewables developer Arevon. (Ironically, Perkins also just launched an ETF to profit from higher electricity demand.)
Earlier this year, the LLC overseeing the project — itself named Townsite Solar 2 — notified the city that it would change tack and instead construct a large data center on the site. There would be no new power generation installed — rather, the facility would hook up directly to an existing substation. This time, the backlash was immediate and fierce, and led Boulder City’s planning commission to reject the data center within city limits.
Quietly, Townsite Solar 2 had prepared a backup plan: The project would shift to federal land that was already approved to use for the second phase of the solar farm. It wasn’t until early July that the Boulder City government and its residents learned that BLM had given Townsite Solar 2 permission to advance the data center without any new public hearings or comment periods. According to BLM, the data center would be essentially like a solar farm, so it wouldn’t require any new review.
“The BLM concluded that the new proposed action — a data center — is essentially the same,” city government attorney Brittany Walker told the Boulder City council at a July 14 public hearing. “This is a departure from previous precedent and procedure as the BLM essentially sweepingly approved a new land use without following processes in federal law.”
Boulder City is now fighting the federal assessment. Walker claimed at the July 14 hearing they weren’t notified ahead of time that Townsite Solar 2 would be so quickly approved and built on this parcel of federal acreage, a form of government-to-government communication often required under federal land use planning statutes.
Mystery continues to swirl around what BLM did here — and how Townsite Solar 2 got the agency to do it.
Nada Culver, who served as No. 2 at BLM under the Biden administration, told me that BLM had veered from the usual course of business in approving this data center. Consulting local governments before a decision is made “sits at the heart” of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, which is the primary statute governing BLM’s land use decision-making, she said. Both that law and the National Environmental Policy Act are “supposed to involve the government actually looking at environmental impacts and sharing them. so it’s not responsible or arguably even legal for the BLM to say, ‘We aren’t going to look at those impacts or share them with the public,” she added.
Boulder City officials have said this is the first major data center approval on federal lands, to their knowledge. Culver told me she believed that to be true, and hadn’t heard of such a thing happening before. “This isn’t a niche BLM issue, so to try and say this is just another use when we’re all surrounded with this loud discussion at the national level about data centers is particularly stark.”
Patrick Donnelly of the Center for Biological Diversity told me his organization and the Sierra Club, another legacy conservation group, are planning a separate legal challenge, one they say is intended to stop more such swaps from happening. Donnelly noted that at least two more data center projects — both powered by on-site gas — are poised to start the federal permitting process at any moment, according to the BLM’s online materials.
“This is the first one, and it’s going to set the stage for these things on public lands, and we can’t let this happen,” he told me.
The timing of this fight couldn’t be worse for the Trump White House, as officials try to pivot towards a “feel your pain” message ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. On Thursday, utilities and data center developers joined Trump cabinet officials at the Environmental Protection Agency for a joint event promoting the administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary set of industry practices geared toward ensuring the cost of AI infrastructure isn’t borne by those living near it.
With the BLM’s decision to advance the data center on federal land, Boulder City will lose an estimated $2.3 million in annual leasing and taxation revenue that it would’ve received if the project were built on city land, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If the project is built on BLM land, Boulder City officials have said they’ll still be forced to front the cost for water and sewage hookup to the facility, as well as road maintenance.
Townsite Solar 2 told me in an unattributed statement that it wants Boulder City “to receive the greatest possible revenue and contribution benefits from the project, regardless of siting on federally-owned or city-owned land.”
“TS2 wants the project to provide meaningful, measurable benefits for Boulder City residents, local businesses, and the broader community. Our goal is to develop a responsible, sustainable project that Boulder City can be proud of and that can serve as a national model.”
The people I talked to for this story were largely flummoxed at BLM’s determination that the data center would be “essentially like” the solar farm that was approved in 2023. “These are two unrelated projects,” Culver told me. “I find it very hard to see how this would not trigger the need for a new analysis or public engagement.”
BLM’s logic made my head hurt, too. Among other things, the agency said “both proposals will use the exact same location, same acreage, and same perimeter,” and “both are proposals for industrial uses that will operationalize cutting-edge technologies that are predominantly electrical and solid state in nature.” The agency also claimed the data center was just like the solar farm because construction would take approximately the same amount of time, and would involve facilities and changes that “are visually geometric and less than 30 feet in height.”
You could describe a data center this way, but you could also describe any other number of things this way: a grocery store, a factory, a rollercoaster.
When I asked BLM for comment, a spokesperson simply sent me back the text used in the press release announcing Townsite Solar 2’s data center approval. A press representative for Townsite Solar 2 declined to provide details about who handled government affairs for the data center project, except to say that it hadn’t hired any federal lobbyists.
Some of Trump’s loudest critics told me they think this deal happened because Arevon, a joint partner described as a key financier in the project’s application with Boulder City, hired lobbyists with The Bernhardt Group, a government relations firm created last year by former Trump Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. Arevon hired the firm around the same time Townsite Solar 2 initiated the process to use the federal land for the data center, according to federal disclosures.
I have a history with Bernhardt. After leaving the Trump administration in 2021, Bernhardt went on to run the Trumpworld think tank America First Policy Institute and released a tell-all book, You Report to Me, that called for the bureaucracy to stand down against — as he put it to me — “the interests of the executive.” (I interviewed him around the time of its publication, after which he gave me an unsolicited copy of the book that I keep at my bedside as a form of dark humor.)
These days Bernhardt’s firm represents oil interests, including energy companies, mining, and large-scale agricultural interests that use lots of water (think: almonds). But it’s also pitching itself to the AI energy commentariat. In May, the former Interior secretary authored an op-ed in The Washington Examiner calling for rapid investment in U.S. artificial intelligence infrastructure. He then took to right-wing TV network Newsmax to promote the column, arguing that people fighting to stop data centers were just trying to “oppose the president’s vision for energy dominance.”
It would be easy to point at these federal disclosures and online comments and claim this bizarre data center land use swap is the work of a familiar Trump-era boogeyan. Except Arevon was effusive to me in saying that is not what happened here. In a statement, the company said that it’s a passive member of the joint venture, holds less than 25% ownership stake, and has “not directly hired consultants or lobbyists for this project.”
I didn’t get a response from Overwatch, a data center engineering and design firm contracted to help with the project. Overwatch does have a director of government affairs, but their hire was announced months after the application would have been submitted to BLM.
This leaves us sleuths to conclude the likeliest reason this happened is also the most obvious one: Trump just wants data centers on federal lands, and this was a way to make that happen. What happens next will have enormous implications for the future of data center development and federal land use in the United States, especially if more companies facing federal permit stonewalling seek to turn their solar farm permits into permission to build AI infrastructure.