The data center fight could decide the next president and cost America the AI race
This opinion piece argues that a growing backlash against data centres, driven largely by rising electricity bills, is prompting US governors from both parties to restrict or pause new builds, a shift the author warns could hand China the advantage in the global AI race. It highlights how politicians face little political cost in opposing data centres locally, even as doing so risks driving away the investment and jobs tied to America's AI infrastructure ambitions.
The article cites Kentucky retiree Gary Elder, who fears a proposed 500-megawatt data centre could push his bill towards $1,000, as emblematic of the seven in ten Americans opposed to local data centres. It notes that Governors Josh Shapiro, Greg Abbott, Kathy Hochul and Ron DeSantis have all moved to restrict or review data centre development, while President Trump has criticised such curbs, and Ohio's Senate race has become a flashpoint over the issue. The piece also points to a genuine bottleneck in high-voltage transformers—of which China controls roughly 60% of global production—and notes rival programmes in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Japan competing for the same investment, against Goldman Sachs' estimate of nearly $600 billion in US AI-related spending in 2026.
- US governors are restricting data centre construction amid public backlash over rising electricity bills.
- Author warns this political trend could cede AI infrastructure leadership to China.
- A key bottleneck is scarce high-voltage transformers, 60% made in China.
New here? Start with this
Rising electricity bills in parts of the United States are turning residents against the huge data centres being built to power artificial intelligence systems. These facilities use enormous amounts of electricity, and some communities blame them for pushing up household energy costs, sparking local opposition across the political spectrum.
In response, state governors from both major parties, including figures such as Josh Shapiro, Greg Abbott, Kathy Hochul and Ron DeSantis, have begun restricting, pausing or reviewing new data centre projects in their states. This has put them at odds with President Trump, who has criticised such curbs, and has turned the issue into a live political flashpoint, notably in Ohio's Senate race.
The stakes go beyond local politics because data centres underpin the computing power needed for AI development, an area where the US and China are competing for global leadership. Building enough capacity also depends on scarce equipment such as high-voltage transformers, much of which is produced in China, while countries including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Japan are also vying to attract the same investment.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for expanding data centre development argue that America's lead in artificial intelligence is not guaranteed and depends on building the physical infrastructure to support it; ceding ground now, they warn, could hand rivals such as China a lasting strategic and economic advantage. They point to nearly $600 billion in projected AI-related investment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for jobs, tax revenue and technological leadership, and argue that local objections, however understandable, risk imposing a national cost for a local convenience. On this view, the sensible path is to address grid capacity and transformer bottlenecks directly rather than blocking the projects that depend on them.
The case against
Those resisting rapid data centre expansion argue that ordinary households should not be asked to shoulder higher electricity bills to subsidise infrastructure built primarily for corporate and national strategic gain, especially when residents like Gary Elder face concrete, immediate financial strain. They see local communities as entitled to a meaningful say over how their land, water and power resources are used, and view scepticism from governors of both parties as a reasonable democratic response to a genuine grievance rather than short-sighted obstruction. From this perspective, prioritising the AI race over ratepayer protections risks treating citizens' welfare as an acceptable casualty of geopolitical competition.