OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Data Center Boom Sparks Growing Local Opposition

7 sources · updated 2026-09-22
Left 50% Center 50% Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

In 2026, a nationwide surge in data-center construction for artificial intelligence has met broad local opposition: the United States already has more than 3,000 data centers, with about 1,500 more proposed—67 percent of them in rural areas—and new AI facilities can require around 1,000 megawatts versus about 5 megawatts for a large center two years earlier. Hyperscalers including Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are expected to spend $1.5 trillion on data centers through next year; Data Center Watch recorded $68 billion in projects disrupted by local opponents in the second quarter of 2026; and several industry-tied companies delayed initial public offerings. Gallup polling found more than 60 percent of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats do not want a data center where they live, and the facilities have become a midterm-election issue ahead of November 2026. In Texas, Republican Governor Greg Abbott paused connections of new data centers to the state grid until an ERCOT audit is complete, while Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa called for a temporary moratorium; in Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro imposed new requirements and removed data centers from a regulatory fast-track. Electricity bills have surged in Loudoun County, Virginia, home to the world’s highest concentration of data centers, and communities from Chandler, Arizona, to Red Oak and Hood County, Texas, have contested projects over water, land use, tax-rebate requests of up to 90 percent for 30 years, and developers’ limited disclosure.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles

1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 17 hours later.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Livia Garofalo
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 21, 20:04 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. First named source 17 hours later, from TechCrunch.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage treats the backlash as a political and market event. Right-leaning coverage treats it as a mistaken explanation for high electric bills. Bloomberg treats the fight as a midterm problem that has put Republicans on the defensive, and left-leaning coverage also records companies delaying stock offerings after public anger. That electoral and investor pressure goes unmentioned on the right, where the Washington Examiner says bills are high because new power still cannot be permitted and interconnected fast enough. The word choice points the same way. The New York Times calls the sites "energy guzzling facilities." The Washington Examiner calls data centers "the new top scapegoat." How much of the recent rise in household electric bills comes from data-center demand, and how much from power plants that were never permitted?
Bottom line

Read Bloomberg and the backlash is a Republican midterm problem; read the Washington Examiner and data centers are "the new top scapegoat" for high bills caused by red tape.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The United States still cannot zone, permit, and interconnect new power fast enough to match what artificial intelligence is asking of the system. contextin Washington Examiner · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Electricity bills in Loudoun County, Virginia, have surged in the last year, at least in part because of growing power demand. contextin CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Amazon Web Services asked a Texas county for up to 90% in property tax rebates for 30 years. numberin CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A ban and a "yes, but bring your own electricity" rule end up in the same place, with the project waiting either way. contextin Washington Examiner · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage presents the boom as an energy-intensive industrial build-out whose political costs are now landing especially on Republicans who had championed it. The New York Times reports Wall Street “growing skeptical” of the boom and ties the delayed IPOs to “increasing public backlash to these energy guzzling facilities.” Bloomberg says opposition “has exploded this year, escalating from a niche local issue to a defining topic ahead of the November midterm elections,” and frames the moment as putting Republicans “on the back foot” as candidates “across the political spectrum have reshaped their messaging” against a build-out “backed by hundreds of billions of dollars” in tech spending.
The Right View
The Washington Examiner argues that data centers have become “the new top scapegoat in American energy politics,” with towns freezing projects, governors piling on conditions, and Senate candidates promising a pause, while “the argument stays fixed on the data center itself.” It contends that electric bills are high “because of red tape,” not AI, because the United States “still cannot zone, permit, and interconnect new power fast enough to match what artificial intelligence is asking of the system.” Until that changes, the paper says, a ban and a “yes, but bring your own electricity” rule “end up in the same place. The project waits either way.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the facilities’ unprecedented scale and concentrated local costs—power, water, noise, large tax abatements, and opaque dealmaking—have produced a genuine cross-partisan revolt, evidenced by Gallup’s majority in every partisan group against siting one nearby, $68 billion in disrupted projects, delayed IPOs, and officials from Abbott to Shapiro tightening rules after courting the industry. The right’s strongest argument is that treating data centers as the cause of high bills misidentifies the bottleneck: if generation and interconnection cannot be permitted at the pace of demand, blocking or conditioning the facilities does not add power and leaves both bills and projects stuck. The central unresolved tension is whether the political problem is the data centers’ local claim on scarce power, water, and land, or a permitting system too slow to supply the electricity those facilities—and everyone else—need.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.