“You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing,” Bob Dylan wrote in 1965. For the 2026 election season, artificial intelligence (AI) is blowing at storm force.
The focal point was data centers, the computing facilities the size of several football fields that drive AI. Fundamentally, this is about power and whether it is exercised by democratic institutions or by those that control the AI infrastructure.
The outrage of local citizens took its toll. According to Data Center Watch, in the first three months of 2026, 75 projects worth $130 billion were blocked or delayed by resistance from local data centers. That was roughly the same number of affected projects as in all 12 months of 2025.
AI megacenters have become a symbol of citizens’ frustration with AI. As the most visible manifestation of AI, they have become a proxy for citizen feedback on AI itself. The debate over land use also reflects broader public concerns about the impact of AI on Americans’ lives and livelihoods. “Concerns about data centers are tied to broader worries that the rapid spread of AI could upend the job market,” Reuters reported. “Americans Don’t Know How to Fight AI. That’s Why They’re Fighting Data Centers,” read a Vox headline.
As AI moves from technology to politics, the key question is who is in charge: democratic structures or autocratic leaders.
In the first decades of the digital age, a small handful of leaders made decisions that affected the rest of us. These same companies are also the key players setting the rules for the AI era.
Long before large language models and chatbots were introduced to the public, early machine intelligence algorithms manipulated online services to optimize interaction. This has collected unprecedented amounts of personal information, amplified misinformation and concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few. These companies became pseudo-governments to make their own rules in their own interests. Many of those whose decisions shaped the online experience and social media are now trying to make decisions for computer-aided perception. A New York Times op-ed said: “Social media was the first contact between AI and humanity, and humanity was lost.”
The AI era is too important to all of us for such undemocratic decision-making to continue. Of course, the United States should be a leader in AI. The question is whether this leadership will be accountable to democratic institutions or concentrated in the hands of a few private actors.
This means that AI has moved from a technology issue to a political issue. It is now a question of power and who controls whether the infrastructure of the 21st century serves the public interest or the interests of the tech oligarchs and their investors.
Fully aware of this challenge and the fact that the local data center movement could metastasize to shape national AI policy, those funding and directing AI development have loosened their purse strings to fund political activity. One of them, Leading the Future, a super PAC, was launched by industry bigwigs, reportedly with $50 million from AI investor Andreessen Horowitz and $50 million from OpenAI president Greg Brockman. Thanks to big money like this, the PAC initially had $140 million in its coffers to “identify, retain and promote pro-AI candidates.”
Many of those who work for the Silicon Valley powerhouses have pushed back, but their wallets are significantly smaller. The Guardrails Alliance, organized by rank-and-file employees of leading AI companies, collects small donations. “AI billionaires are buying our elections. We’re fighting back,” they proclaim. As an antidote to the suggestion that AI should be largely free of oversight, the group advocates setting guidelines for the development and implementation of AI rather than relying on industry decisions.
The political issues are cross-party. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is concerned: “We are watching a handful of corporations build a concentration of capital, information and political power unprecedented in American history.” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warns: “Today’s big tech companies have too much power over our economy, our society and our democracy. They have eliminated competition, exploited our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in doing so, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.”
Coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both senators identify the emerging policy question for the election and beyond: How much economic, informational and political power should be concentrated in a small number of technology companies?
As we find ourselves in the midst of the political season, the Economist summed up the issue in a single question: “Five men control AI. Who controls it?” This is a question that is now being asked of people. The debate over AI has become a referendum on democratic accountability itself.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/data-center-backlash-signals-a-fight-over-ai-power/
