In the course of a single election cycle, the backlash against data centers has grown from an issue at local planning commission and city council meetings to become a flashpoint in state and federal races across the country.

Candidates who once touted data centers as an economic boon have backtracked, and voters in at least three dozen cities, counties and townships will consider ballot measures in November that could ban data centers in their communities. Analysts say the opposition to data centers has come from Republican and Democratic voters alike.

“The people are speaking, and they’re speaking in one voice in opposition to this infrastructure,” said Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst. “It is not something that people desire in any shape, form or fashion. This potentially could be the issue that gives you the status of a former member of a city council or a former member of Congress.”

Last month, UMass Amherst published a poll, directed by Nteta, showing that only 11% of Americans would support the construction of an artificial intelligence data center in their local community. The poll found that 65% of respondents oppose the construction of such facilities.

Local and national activists have a long list of grievances against data centers, which tech companies are aggressively building to provide the computing power for artificial intelligence platforms. The rapid buildout of data centers is expected to strain the electrical grid and drive up energy costs, some forecasts show.

Opponents are also concerned about the facilities’ pollution, water use, noise and conversion of farmland and other open spaces. Many developers are also building private, “behind-the-meter” natural gas plants to power their data centers, increasing concerns about emissions and public health.

Some activists also object to the artificial intelligence technologies the sites will power, which threaten to disrupt the economy, replace workers, erode critical thinking skills and mental health and even — according to some tech executives — potentially kill all humans.

“For so many years, Ohio rolled out the red carpet to become a tech hub,” said Nick Owens, an attorney with Conserve Ohio, a campaign seeking to block data center development. “Unfortunately, what we’ve become is a tech dump.”

Anger at both parties

Activists across the country have lashed out at elected officials from both parties who have offered state and local tax breaks in order to entice data center developers. They’ve also called out local officials for negotiating deals behind closed doors and signing non-disclosure agreements with large tech companies.

“The politicians are chasing the grassroots, they aren’t leading on the issue,” said Anthony Elmo, public education defender with Good Jobs First, a policy group that tracks government subsidies related to economic development. “(Politicians) who were very pro-data center a year ago are now coming out against them due to political factors.”

Tech companies have launched their own political efforts to respond to the backlash. Industry leaders argue that artificial intelligence is key to the nation’s economic competitiveness. They note that the data center boom has created many construction jobs and increased property tax revenue in communities desperate for more money.

Leading the Future, a tech-backed Super PAC, has invested in federal and state campaigns in support of both Republican and Democratic candidates who support artificial intelligence. Josh Vlasto, the group’s co-leader, argued that the narrative around data centers has conflated the industry at large with its worst offenders — speculative projects that disregarded local opposition and failed to meet environmental standards.

“(Voters) want the jobs in their communities, they want the revenue, but they want the risks and downsides mitigated and addressed,” he said. “There is backlash in communities that don’t want them, but if you look to the states that are building and doing it right, these data centers are being welcomed and generating a massive amount of revenue. If this is done correctly, I could see this issue turning drastically in a different direction.”

An investigation earlier this year linked Leading the Future with a news website that used AI bots posing as journalists to solicit quotes for stories that promoted industry talking points. Another investigation found that a dark-money group tied to Leading the Future paid lifestyle influencers to promote artificial intelligence by highlighting the threat of competition from Chinese AI.

The Data Center Coalition, a membership association for tech companies, did not respond to a Stateline interview request. Amazon, Google and OpenAI — industry leaders that have pushed for data center construction — did not respond to Stateline inquiries. Think Big, an associated PAC of Leading the Future that supports Democratic candidates, did not respond to an interview request.

‘People coming together’

Across the United States,  data centers currently use about 49 gigawatts of electricity, according to the website US Data Center Map. New projects planned or under construction total nearly 350 gigawatts — roughly a quarter of the country’s current electrical generation capacity.

While data centers have long powered our online infrastructure, many of the “hyperscale” facilities being built to support artificial intelligence are much larger and use vastly more power.

Ohio has become the political epicenter of the data center backlash. Like many states, Ohio agreed to sales tax exemptions for data centers in the 2010s in order to secure investment from tech companies. In recent years, the state has seen a boom in construction, with 154 operational facilities and 84 more data centers in the works — more than all but three other states.

“Our attraction in Ohio was a very minimal regulatory framework, plentiful farmland and plentiful water,” said Nick Owens, the Conserve Ohio attorney.

Owens, like many data center activists, became engaged on the issue when he learned that a large project was planned in his rural community in Brown County. Owens is a lifelong Republican and was a 2024 delegate for President Donald Trump, who has called data center opponents “backwards and poor.” He said politicians from city councils to the White House have failed to hear residents’ concerns.

“The dysfunction and unresponsiveness of government at all levels is truly sickening and frightening,” he said. “Conversely, it’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen, people coming together across communities, putting partisan differences aside and uniting (to oppose data centers).”

Conserve Ohio has worked with community activists across the state to draft ballot initiatives to ban data centers, change zoning regulations or require voter approval for large facilities. In total, Ohio municipalities will vote on 21 ballot measures related to data centers. Nationwide, 39 measures in eight states will be on the ballot this year, according to Ballotpedia.

In elections earlier this year, four local ballot measures across the country were decided with overwhelming opposition to data centers.

Jen Belt is the leader of Protect Grove City, an Ohio nonprofit backing a ballot measure to block development in that community.

“This is the first issue that I’ve seen Grove City united in such a way,” she said. “It is red, it is blue, it is every age, it is every socioeconomic status. It kind of gives you hope.”

Three communities in Kansas will vote on data center bans in November, including Ottawa, a city in the eastern portion of the state where residents have fought back against a proposed data center. Michael Lewis, with the nonprofit group Ottawa United, which has led the campaign, said locals were outraged when city commissioners announced the planned development.

“Everything was negotiated without public input, it was all done behind closed doors until they brought it out and approved it,” he said.

Lewis serves as vice chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party and is running for state representative. But the data center backlash has been so strong that his allies on the issue include the secretary of the Franklin County Republican Party and GOP state Rep. Rebecca Schmoe, his opponent in the general election.

Issue in statewide races

The issue has been a focal point of statewide races as well. U.S.  Sen. Jon Husted of Ohio, a Republican, has come under attack for championing tax breaks for data centers during his time as lieutenant governor. His Democratic opponent, former U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, has run ads calling him “the face of data centers.”

Last month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee warned in a memo that data centers are “the anchor hanging around Husted’s neck,” The Washington Post reported. Husted has drafted a bill that would require state utility regulators to consider making data centers pay to cover the costs of their own electrical infrastructure needs. Senate Democrats blocked the bill last month, calling it “toothless” political messaging.

In Pennsylvania, both gubernatorial candidates have distanced themselves from their previous support for data centers. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, until recently a staunch data center advocate, issued a moratorium on new data center permits last month, amid attacks from his Democratic opponent.

“Republican candidates know this is a losing issue and one that can do damage to their already questionable electoral positions,” said Nteta, the political science professor. “It’s a unique issue that brings together Americans in ways we don’t usually see.”

Vlasto, with the pro-data center Super PAC, said candidates calling for statewide bans on data centers are overcorrecting.

“Each community is going to make their choice,” he said. “Some communities are just not going to welcome data centers. From a political position, it doesn’t seem like preventing communities that want to build data centers is a palatable position either.”

Elmo, with Good Jobs First, said even longtime data center opponents are surprised at how quickly they have become a top political issue. He said tech companies and politicians who once promoted data centers have now joined calls for “responsible” development.

“This issue puts (politicians) between a rock and a hard place between the grassroots and their wealthy tech donors,” he said. “If the industry you’re trying to regulate immediately agrees with everything you’re suggesting to regulate them, I’d suggest that those regulations are not extremely effective.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

With Election Day less than a month away, lawmakers in several states are suspending gas taxes or rolling back regulations on diesel fuel as voters grow increasingly frustrated with rising fuel costs amid President Donald Trump’s war with Iran.

On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order to expand access to tax-free diesel fuel nationwide, following the lead of several governors who have taken the same step.

Trump signed the order at a Nebraska rally, promising U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts and Gov. Jim Pillen, both Republicans, that “this should absolutely ensure your election, I guarantee you that,” the Associated Press reported.

In at least four states — Georgia, Indiana, Ohio and Utah — leaders have moved to temporarily suspend or reduce the state tax on gasoline.

Ohio lawmakers voted last month to approve a 90-day gas tax holiday, a move called for by both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor.

While many Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the bill, some Democratic leaders called the measure a last-ditch effort to salvage the GOP’s electoral prospects, the Ohio Capital Journal reported.

“If this had been so important, we would have acted (earlier this year), but we didn’t,” said Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, a Democrat. “They said we have nothing more to take up until after the election, and then suddenly they got polling numbers, and the polling numbers told them they were behind.”

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp suspended the state’s gas tax with an executive order, as did Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun.

And Utah lawmakers voted earlier this year to temporarily reduce the gas tax by 15%.

Tennessee governor lets farmers use untaxed diesel on roads after Trump defers federal enforcement

Meanwhile, 10 states had reduced restrictions on the use of tax-exempt diesel fuel prior to Trump’s order that loosened those restrictions nationwide.

That fuel, known as red-dyed diesel, is normally only allowed for off-highway agricultural, industrial and railroad use, according to the North Dakota Monitor. Some governors have issued executive orders expanding the use of red-dyed diesel, which is not taxed like regular diesel,  in a bid to help farmers and truckers with transportation costs.

North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, North Carolina and Indiana have all issued similar orders, according to the Associated Press.

“Texas agriculture and freight run on diesel,” Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune. “Record prices put both industries at risk and raise costs for every Texas family.”

Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee also issued an order Tuesday allowing farmers and loggers to use red-dyed diesel on public roads, at the urging of state lawmakers.

In other states, leaders are facing pressure to take similar action.

Legislative leaders in North Carolina have called for a special session on fuel prices. Some lawmakers there have suggested that the state could use surplus revenue from state reserves to pay for road projects while temporarily suspending the gas tax.

The Iowa Corn Growers Association is urging lawmakers there to follow suit, while asking them to push the Trump administration to release oil from the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve.

In Kentucky, Republican Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell has asked Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to also roll back restrictions on untaxed diesel. And Connecticut Republicans have proposed a three-month holiday on fuel taxes, while Democrats have countered that they should focus on ending Trump’s war with Iran.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

The Trump administration’s top wildlife official issued a directive last week that expands a recent rollback of endangered species protections much further than the feds had told the public.

Individuals and industries may kill endangered animals in the course of logging projects, developments and other activities, it said — so long as the activity’s purpose isn’t killing species.

The memo issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik is the most drastic move yet in the Trump administration’s campaign to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act. 

Wildlife advocates and experts said the nation’s bedrock wildlife conservation law would offer few safeguards under the new federal guidelines. 

“Unless you’re wearing a T-shirt that says, ‘I’m here to draw the blood of endangered species,’ you’re basically off the hook,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director with the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation nonprofit. “Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, go crazy, we’re not gonna prosecute you.”

Chris Servheen, who served as grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 35 years, said the agency’s current approach to the endangered species law is “ridiculously extreme.”

“It’s essentially going to be a meaningless law, and it will have no protection whatsoever for species,” he said. “It’s like taking the four wheels off your car and saying it’s still your car.”

Earlier this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies finalized a rule excluding the destruction of habitat from the definition of “harm” covered by the law. As long as chopping trees or draining a wetland didn’t directly kill animals, the feds said, those actions were legal even if they led to a species’ demise. 

Now, Nesvik is instructing wildlife officials that even the direct killing of endangered animals does not constitute an illegal “take” as long the action was not “intentionally directed at a particular animal or animals.” Its instructions to staff on how to implement the new rule take effect immediately. 

“A vessel that inadvertently strikes a whale has not taken it, because the vessel’s course was not set against the whale,” he wrote. “Felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them.”

The memo could unravel a longstanding framework in which developers and other industries undergo an environmental analysis for their projects’ impacts to endangered species, and obtain permits accounting for that harm. Wildlife advocates warned that industries using the agency’s new directive to forgo permits may still face citizen lawsuits, and a new administration could reinstate the previous interpretation of the law.

The Fish and Wildlife Service forwarded a Stateline request for comment to the Department of the Interior, which did not grant an interview request.

The memo, sent last Monday to agency staff across the country, quickly raised alarms after it was leaked to the public. 

“This is an incredibly sneaky and disingenuous way of going about things,” said Ben Levitan, senior attorney with the biodiversity defense program at Earthjustice, a legal conservation nonprofit. “They led everyone to believe they were doing one thing with the rescission of the definition of harm, and now they’ve issued a memo saying, ‘What we actually meant was this.’”

A coalition of attorneys general, tribes and environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s rollbacks to the Endangered Species Act. Advocates said the Nesvik memo will open up a new battle ground in the ongoing legal fight, but it’s too early to say if that will come in the form of separate lawsuits. 

Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation nonprofit, noted that the “harm” rule and Nesvik’s memo draw heavily from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a landmark 1995 case. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that habitat destruction constitutes harm to wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. But Scalia disagreed, saying that the “take” of wildlife describes actions “done directly and intentionally (not indirectly and by accident) to particular animals (not populations of animals).”

“(Nesvik’s) decision in every aspect of it entirely relies on Scalia’s dissent,” she said. “It’s reducing the scope of (endangered species protections) to an absurdly narrow interpretation that is inconsistent with what Congress intended.”   

While some industry groups supported the “harm” rule in public comments, few of the organizations or lawmakers who backed that change have made public statements on Nesvik’s memo about how it will be applied. But some conservatives praised the decision.

“It will shield innocent people from litigation by the country’s largest law firm, the Department of Justice,” William Perry Pendley, who served as acting director of the Bureau of Land Management during Trump’s first term, told Cowboy State Daily.

Wildlife advocates said the memo could allow developers or logging companies to knowingly chop down a forest filled with endangered owls or bats, so long as the purpose of their action was timber harvest. 

“(The memo) says you can knowingly kill an endangered species as long as you’re not killing it for the sake of killing it,” said Kate Groetzinger, communications director with the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group. “This basically is a blank check to companies, landowners, developers, loggers — anyone operating in endangered species habitat — to both destroy that habitat and kill the animals and literally face no consequences.”   

Servheen, the former grizzly bear recovery coordinator, said the memo will allow hunters to gun down endangered species, as long as they later claim they mistook a grizzly bear for a black bear or a similar failure of species identification. 

“This tells law enforcement that they have no ability to prosecute somebody who kills a grizzly bear,” he said. “(Hunters) are basically relieved of any responsibility of what they’re shooting, you can do whatever you want and say ‘I didn’t mean to.’ It makes the outdoors a pretty dangerous place now.”

The memo could also limit environmental reviews of potentially harmful projects, some advocates warned. For instance, a new road through Florida panther territory may no longer need an environmental analysis if increased vehicle collisions with panthers are no longer considered “take” by federal wildlife officials, Davenport said. 

During the rulemaking process for the “harm” definition, federal officials argued that the change would empower states to protect wildlife under their own laws. But experts say state wildlife agencies lack the authority, resources and expertise to replace federal oversight. 

Wildlife officials in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, New Jersey, Vermont and Wyoming submitted public comments expressing concern with the proposal, as did the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, a nonprofit that represents state wildlife managers. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

A coalition of state attorneys general filed a pair of lawsuits Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s rollbacks of protections for endangered species. 

The lawsuits, filed by 20 states and the District of Columbia, seek to reinstate rules that protect the habitat that endangered species depend on to survive. 

Under President Donald Trump, federal agencies have changed their interpretation of “harm” under the endangered species law to include only actions that directly injure or kill animals. For decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies had taken a broader position that the law also banned the destruction of forests, streams and wetlands that those animals depend on for nesting, mating and raising young. 

“The federal government’s attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act threatens the habitats of orcas, sockeye salmon, and other endangered species that are part of our economy, culture, and way of life,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said in a news release. 

A second lawsuit challenges a pair of new rules that change the process for federal wildlife officials to designate “critical habitat.” The rules reduce protections for newly listed threatened species and make it easier for officials to decline to list certain lands as critical. 

“For over half a century, the (Endangered Species Act) has stood as a bipartisan example of what it means to protect an irreplaceable part of our planet, but these new rules attempt to destroy longstanding and integral regulatory protections and open the door to further species decline and possible extinctions,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. 

The lawsuits argue that the rollbacks enacted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service violate two key federal laws, the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. According to Bonta’s press release, the rules ignore not just the purpose and history of the Endangered Species Act but also numerous court rulings and the law’s “overall precautionary approach.”

The lawsuits are led by Brown and Bonta, along with the attorneys general of Maryland and Massachusetts. The suits were also joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. 

The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In a statement, the Department of the Interior vowed to “vigorously defend its authority” to manage endangered species under the new guidelines.

“This lawsuit seeks to preserve a decades-old regulatory overreach that expanded the Endangered Species Act beyond the authority granted by Congress,” the agency said, according to Reuters. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

State leaders are breathing a sigh of relief that the Trump administration’s threats to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency have subsided. 

But experts say there’s still confusion about President Donald Trump’s decisions to approve or deny disaster declarations, leaving states with uncertainty about whether they can expect federal recovery funds.

“The foundation (at FEMA) seems stronger than it did six months ago, but this is an unreliable administration when it comes to the fair and equitable distribution of disaster funds,” said Juliette Kayyem, faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a former Obama administration official.

Trump has long called on states to take on a larger role in responding to disasters, and suggested early in his second term that FEMA might “go away” entirely. Kristi Noem, who served as Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security until she was fired in March, pledged at one point to “eliminate” FEMA, and slashed the agency’s spending and staffing during her tenure. 

Last month, the Senate confirmed Cameron Hamilton to serve as FEMA’s administrator, making him the first permanent agency leader during Trump’s second term. Hamilton, once a FEMA critic, had previously served as acting administrator, but was fired in May 2025 after saying he had become convinced the agency should not be eliminated. 

Experts say Hamilton’s return and Noem’s departure are signs of stability for FEMA. 

“It’s basically a return to regular order,” said Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA’s administrator under President Barack Obama. “They’re filling positions and reestablishing programs that got cut during the purge.”

State emergency managers say the leadership changes are welcome developments. 

“(Hamilton) he has the right attitude as far as supporting his employees and supporting the states,” said Lynn Budd, director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security. “I have a positive feel for that.”

Budd also serves as president of the National Emergency Management Association, a nonprofit comprising state and territorial emergency officials.

While FEMA appears to be safe from the most drastic threats, states still face uncertainty over some agency programs they have long relied on. The agency has said that states must comply with Trump’s voting and immigration policies in order to qualify for Homeland Security Grant Program funding. A coalition of states and municipalities have sued, saying they stand to lose out on millions of dollars they need to prepare for terrorist and other security threats. 

The White House press office did not respond to a Stateline interview request. 

Trump decisions

Experts say the biggest challenge for emergency managers is the lack of clarity around Trump’s disaster approvals. While FEMA has clear thresholds that determine which disasters qualify for federal aid, the president has full discretion to approve or deny those requests for help.

Trump has been far more willing to grant disaster declarations for Republican-led states, at 89%, while Democratic-led states have seen only 23% of their requests approved, a Politico analysis found in March. 

Trump overruled the recommendations of his own agencies when he rejected federal aid for four Democratic-led states in July, Politico reported. 

“The bad news is you have a very unreliable administration and a very political president,” said Kayyem, of Harvard. “When it comes to states’ expectations, we can’t know what this White House will do.”

But some emergency management veterans said the denials aren’t a clear-cut case of political retribution. Fugate, the former FEMA administrator under Obama, noted that many of the disaster requests Trump rejected were snow-related. Trump’s administration has pushed to eliminate snow assistance from FEMA disaster aid, arguing that states should not receive federal reimbursement for plowing their own roads. Many of the northern states that have experienced snow disasters are represented by Democrats. 

For other disasters, Fugate said, Trump has a higher bar for granting federal recovery funds. 

“The administration’s been very clear they’re wanting to raise thresholds, even if they haven’t formally changed the numbers,” he said. “I’ve not seen them deny catastrophic disasters, major disasters. It’s the smaller marginal disasters that are really judgment calls.”

While saying he “ain’t a big fan” of the Trump administration, Fugate said shifting the financial burden for disaster relief from the feds back to the states has been a longtime discussion among both parties. 

Still, emergency managers said the White House should provide more clarity about what the new thresholds are and give states time to prepare for a bigger role. 

“There’s really never been feedback about why a disaster was denied,” said Budd, the Wyoming official. “That’s something I would hope to see in the future, creating more clarity in what exactly are we looking at when we go through the process of trying to request a major disaster declaration.”

State money

Some states have begun preparing for a drawback of FEMA support. Tennessee lawmakers established a statewide recovery fund intended to help communities hit by disasters that don’t qualify for federal aid. While Republican Gov. Bill Lee requested $100 million to create the fund, lawmakers ultimately approved $44.2 million earlier this year. Some legislators fear that won’t go very far. 

“Cutting it by more than half shows the State can’t afford for FEMA to cut back its support, much less to stop supporting states altogether,” state Sen. Jeff Yarbro, a Democrat, told the Tennessee Lookout in a statement. “Funded at its current level, this fund can only really fill a few gaps where FEMA is too slow or too rigid.”

Budd, the president of the emergency managers’ group, said other states are considering similar funds. 

“These are the types of programs that we as states need to look at, and something that I will have conversations about with our legislators in the future,” she said. 

But as states look at making those investments, Budd called on the White House to give them more time. 

“The very hard part about saying states need to do more is that it cannot happen overnight,” she said. “It will take time for states and lawmakers to build that.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.