A fight is underway for the economic future of the United States, and some of our own politicians are siding with global competitors over domestic interests.
Artificial intelligence—and the data center infrastructure that powers it—represents the defining economic opportunity of this generation. JPMorgan recently reported that in the first half of 2025, “AI-related capital expenditures” contributed 1.1% to GDP growth, more than consumer spending contributed to overall expansion.
The nation that builds the most robust AI infrastructure will anchor the industries, jobs and wealth creation of the next half-century. That nation should be the United States. The question is whether policymakers—and those who influence them—will allow that future to take shape.
A new report from the American Energy Institute should be required reading for members of Congress, state legislators and local officials. It documents more than $39 million in foreign funding—from billionaires and foundations in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Denmark—flowing into a coordinated network of activist groups working to block U.S. data center construction.
These are not isolated local protests. They represent a manufactured opposition campaign funded from abroad, with the goal of shifting America’s AI future elsewhere.
Foreign interests, watching the United States on the cusp of further technological leadership, are spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure we stumble. Meanwhile, some elected officials—wittingly or not—are amplifying that effort by calling for moratoriums, imposing regulatory hurdles and lending credibility to what is presented as a grassroots movement.
Before calling for a pause on data center construction, policymakers should ask a simple question: Who benefits? Not American workers who would build and operate these facilities. Not communities that would attract investment and tax revenue. Not the broader economy that stands to gain from the next wave of industrial growth.
The beneficiaries are America’s competitors—countries eager to capture the economic activity and strategic advantages that hesitation leaves behind.
A deeper concern is that some organizations traditionally associated with free markets and limited government have aligned, intentionally or not, with this foreign-backed campaign. Framing opposition in terms of property rights, local control or energy concerns may sound principled, but it can serve the same end as foreign-funded efforts to stall development.
Advocates of free markets should be wary of any movement that, however inadvertently, advances the goals of foreign interests seeking to constrain U.S. economic growth.
The debate over data centers is not merely environmental; it is strategic. Either the United States builds the infrastructure needed to lead in artificial intelligence, or it cedes that ground. There is no neutral position. Delays do not stop development—they redirect it.
Every moratorium, lawsuit or zoning fight tied to foreign-funded activism risks pushing investment and capability elsewhere.
Policymakers owe the public transparency about who is shaping the opposition they choose to support. Americans for Public Trust has warned that foreign actors are exploiting disclosure loopholes to influence domestic debates—raising concerns about transparency, accountability and sovereignty.
The United States has earned its place at the forefront of AI. Maintaining that position will require the political will to resist well-funded foreign interference. America’s economic future should not be outsourced.
Today’s TechByte was written by Bartlett Cleland, Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Policy Innovation