In late October, an unlikely coalition formed to fiercely oppose controversial plans for more than a dozen Michigan datacenters – rightwing “Stop the Steal” activists joined forces with groups like the Democratic Socialists of America, and people of all political stripes in between.
Polling showed just 28% of residents supported new datacenters, and, amid the furor, Michigan state congressman Dylan Wegela introduced a bill to repeal datacenter tax credits. Despite an opportunity for what looked like an easy political win, the bill has few co-sponsors, is unlikely to move in the state house, and most datacenter plans are poised to be built.
Wegela in part attributed the tepid legislative response to “a lack of political courage” from other politicians.
But the situation in Michigan is emblematic of the broader dynamics unfolding around datacenters in the US. The centers are often so widely loathed across the political spectrum that they are bringing together people who can agree on little else, and the issue has been dubbed “the great unifier”.
Despite this, there has been scant political opposition or action among many Democrats or Republicans – why?
In short, there is a very powerful confluence of forces pushing for datacenters, advocates say.
“It is a perfect, wild storm,” said Christy McGillivray, a former Sierra Club Michigan lobbyist who helped push for stronger regulations around the centers in the state.
Among other issues, national Republican and Democrat leadership are jockeying for big tech’s financial favor in the wake of an election cycle in which the sector shattered spending records as it shifted from leaning left to right.
Meanwhile, those who benefit most from centers represent a potent political force: big tech, the fossil fuel industry, utility companies and the AFL-CIO are allied in support of datacenters and the claims of new jobs they might create. At the same time, the political establishment has made AI expansion a national security issue, and some pro-business Democrats in Michigan are driven by purported economic development.
Moreover, the problems are relatively new, and many Congress members are not yet educated enough on the issue, industry observers say.
The grassroots opposition stems from fears that the centers would increase energy bills, deplete water sources, destroy communities’ rural character, pollute, and cause more fossil fuel to be built. The centers, which house AI infrastructure, create very few jobs, and AI is in part designed to eliminate many jobs.
With state and federal lawmakers largely in support, David v Goliath fights are playing out at the local level across the US, often pitting working- and middle-class residents of all political backgrounds against the interests of tech oligarchs.
McGillivray said state and federal inaction risks further alienating people at a fragile time in US democracy.
“It’s incredibly dangerous for elected officials to feed into the perception that democratic governance cannot do what the vast majority of people want,” McGillivray said.
The levels of political pushback vary from calls for a moratorium on new datacenters to raising concerns in public statements. Many of those taking action are from the Democratic party’s left wing – though not all.
Over the last month, at the federal level, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib called for a moratorium, while others like Senators Ed Markey, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Congressman Ro Khanna called for stricter regulations or investigations.
At the state level, Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has proposed a sweeping set of measures that aim to protect residents from exploitation by big tech datacenters and AI. Virginia’s Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger, made capping utility bills a campaign focus in 2025.
Still, the scattered response does not match the issue’s speed or depth, advocates say. That is in part because many politicians do not yet understand how the centers impact on communities, or grasp the breadth of the opposition, said Michelle Deatrick, chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Climate Council, who works on datacenter issues in Congress.
“It’s all happening really fast, and at the national level, a lot of elected leaders I meet with just don’t know that much yet,” Deatrick said.
They added that they expect that more candidates – incumbents and challengers – will begin making datacenters a campaign issue as the midterm races heat up throughout 2026.
Educating lawmakers is in part the goal of a Food And Water Watch-spearheaded campaign. In December, it sent a letter signed by over 230 consumer and environmental protection groups to Congress members demanding a moratorium.
The campaign is also trying to connect local grassroots opposition to harness that energy and direct it at lawmakers, said Jim Walsh, policy director for Food and Water Watch.
“We need to put a halt to more datacenters while policymakers put policies in place that won’t adversely affect people,” Walsh said.
The broader issue, he added, is money in politics. Tech oligarchs spent about $240m supporting Republicans and just $52m supporting Democrats last session, a Guardian analysis of federal records found. Democratic leadership is viewed as tiptoeing around tech leaders who they want to win back.
“The political system is dominated by big money interests that have spent millions of dollars to try to brush these issues, like energy costs, under the rug,” Walsh said. He noted that the Republican party has control over Congress and the White House, and it drives policy. Trump, who is closely allied with big tech, is attempting to stop states from regulating data centers.
Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO has complicated the issue for Democrats. The union’s leadership typically supports projects for which the organization would benefit, even if it is widely opposed by the public. Advocates in Michigan said stronger regulations and consumer protections would be in place had the AFL-CIO not opposed them.
Advocates also say some Democrats’ tepid response is part of a broader problem with the party – an engrained unwillingness to take bold action on major problems.
“There’s almost no risk involved in embracing this issue, so it’s like it’s a cultural thing from the party’s top leaders,” Deatrick said.
The inaction in Congress has pushed the battles to the state level. In Georgia, a Democrat candidate for the state’s public utility commission, which regulates datacenters’ energy use, won in a landslide October upset, in part because he campaigned on stronger regulation of the industry.
In Michigan, Oracle and OpenAI are proposing a datacenter backed by the Trump administration and the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer. The companies and government would invest about $7bn, and Whitmer and other pro-business Democrats have touted it as the largest project in state history, and a massive economic win.
But it is receiving potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal tax breaks, and would create very few jobs. Meanwhile, datacenters in the state have a history of not delivering on job or tax revenue creation estimates.
Still, pro-business Democrats view the centers and economic development as a “magical unicorn that will solve everyone’s problems,” said Yousef Rabhi, a former state legislator and clean energy advocate. Many politicians refuse to consider the facilities’ externalized costs and problems, Rabhi added.
“There’s no discernment and anytime you start asking these questions, it’s met with a ‘How dare you question or push back on it,’” Rabhi said.
#perfect #wild #storm #widely #loathed #datacenters #political #opposition #politics