As data centers become a defining issue on the midterm campaign trail, some voters are drawing a line in the sand over a yes-or-no question that's dividing candidates across the country, especially Democrats.
Support for moratoriums, or bans, on data center construction has become a litmus test for some voters, more progressive ones in particular.
As public opinion has quickly soured over the summer on the facilities — which house energy-consuming, noise-producing, water-guzzling infrastructure for artificial intelligence programs — many politicians on both the left and right have increasingly signaled new skepticism about them. Cities and states, red and blue alike, have swiftly enacted fresh regulations to conserve environmental resources from
data centers' impacts while moving to shield consumers' electricity bills from spiking because of them, too.
Data-center proponents argue there are major benefits to them, though. Trade unions have stressed they create blue-collar jobs. Democrats and Republicans have professed a need for the United States to stay at the frontier of emerging AI technology, underlining what they see are the critical national security implications of doing so. Maintaining a competitive edge against China is also a big part of the debate.
For more moderate candidates seeking voters' support in November, there's an increasingly fine political line to walk. Yet when it comes to salient populist issues, nuanced messages don’t always resonate with voters — or more importantly, energize them to get to the polls.
Progressives see a political opportunity there, said Ravi Mangla, the national press secretary for the progressive Working Families Party. Mangla said he predicts data centers, including support for temporary moratoriums, could be a "huge realignment issue in the midterms." Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, introduced federal legislation earlier this year to pause all new data centers, and expansion of existing ones, "until strong national safeguards are in place."
"There's an intuitive feeling of voters that the federal government needs to step in here," Mangla told USA TODAY. "Things that feel like half steps or half measures are inadequate."
A campaign trail view
A campaign trail event in Great Falls, Montana, two weeks ago was supposed to center on military issues. But voters kept asking about data centers.
When one asked Seth Bodnar, a Democrat-like independent in the Senate race there, for his thoughts on data centers, he said he was "strongly opposed to anything that happens to Montana communities without their involvement." To the extent any AI infrastructure threatened water resources or hiked utility bills in the Treasure State, he said he was against new projects. In every case, he stressed building costs need to be clear and completely borne by developers.
"If that's not the case, then it's a no," he said. The room broke into applause.
Later, he was asked by a local nurse Jennifer Yoder why he wouldn't support moratoriums. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, for instance, implemented a temporary one-year ban on data center development in the Empire State in July. Other states and localities have followed suit. But Bodnar argued that guardrails, rather than all-out bans, would be more "smart, sensible policy."
"Right now, we're careening on a course of people either burying their heads in the sand and pretending like AI is a technology that doesn't exist, or people saying, look, it should just develop unfettered," he said.
Yoder, a Democrat, wasn't satisfied with that answer. She told USA TODAY after the event she wasn't planning on voting for Bodnar, who already faces longshot odds, in November.
"Data centers are important to me because I see how they're impacting other communities around the nation," she said. "I don't want that."
A tricky debate
One of the most illustrative examples of how the public debate over data centers has changed this year is in Pennsylvania.
Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who's running for reelection and is also an expected 2028 presidential contender, has significantly shifted his tone on the issue. Just over a year ago, he publicly touted Amazon's decision to build data centers in his state, saying the choice proved his administration could "work at the speed of business." He lauded the anticipated economic growth, including an influx of jobs.
This month, however, he signed an executive order slapping more regulations on big-tech companies and developers, saying Pennsylvanians wouldn't be "bullied" by hot-shot Silicon Valley lawyers.
Other Democrats, including Bobby Pulido, who's running against Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz to flip Texas' 15th Congressional District, are now arguing the job-growth argument has been overstated.
“Those data centers don't provide a lot of jobs other than building them," he told USA TODAY earlier this summer. "But that's it. That's a one-shot, one-time deal."
That shift underscores just how much the tenor of the political and cultural discourse around data centers has been altered by public sentiment. It also demonstrates the complexity of the topic, which is a classic example of a "collective action problem," according to Victor Menaldo, a political science professor at the University of Washington.
"The benefits are diffuse, but the costs are concentrated," he said. Bigger tax bases and local spending commitments are major pros, he said. But the cons can be significant, too.
"Big electric demand, possibly higher bills, the need to do grid upgrades ... If you put all these things together, it’s completely logical why they're opposed," he said.
Contributing: Rebecca Morin
Zachary Schermele is the congressional correspondent for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@usatoday.com. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @zachschermele.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A red line on data centers is splitting Democrats in the midterms
