6 in 10 Republicans Oppose Local Data Centers as Both Parties Make It a Midterm Issue
More than 6 in 10 Republicans are strongly or somewhat opposed to building data centers near where they live, according to Gallup polling reported Sept. 8. MarketWatch described the dynamic as 'Local Data Center Fights Are Reshaping the Midterms—Here's How.'
Many Democrats and a growing number of Republicans are campaigning against data centers in the midterm elections, according to The New York Times. That opposition now includes paid campaign ads.
Ads from Republicans and Democrats from Georgia to Iowa oppose data centers, according to WABE. Wisconsin Democratic candidate for governor Francesca Hong called for a moratorium, a temporary pause, on data centers, according to NPR. Republicans in Texas, Michigan and Florida are shifting positions on data centers amid voter opposition, according to TIME
Backlash to AI data centers is dividing rural Republicans in Texas, according to PBS. President Donald Trump continues to support data centers, according to that same assessment.
President Donald J. Trump signed an order in July 2025 to speed up federal permits for data center infrastructure, according to The White House. The plans cover AI data centers and high-voltage transmission lines (the large power lines that carry electricity over long distances) and call for rapid buildout of AI data centers and critical infrastructure. The White House also announced more than $92 billion in AI and energy investments.
On March 4, 2026, Trump called on leading U.S. hyperscalers, the largest cloud and AI companies, and AI companies to build, bring, or buy all of the energy needed for data centers, according to The White House. Under that wording, developers and large tenants must arrange the power.
Trump's push for more AI data centers has faced backlash from his own voters, according to Reuters. Residents fear data centers will raise utility bills, according to the same reporting.
SLB expects its deal to generate more than $2 billion in data center revenue in 2026 on a pro forma basis (counted as if the deal were already complete), according to MarketWatch
The broader context here is a clash over permits and who pays. Washington can shorten federal reviews. It cannot rezone counties or set the retail electricity prices households pay. When local opposition in both parties lengthens approval and grid-connection timelines while federal policy tries to shorten them, start dates for projects and the cash they are contracted to produce become harder to predict.
Looking at what this means for savers and investors, two things matter most: who pays for power and where projects can actually get built. If hyperscalers must build, bring, or buy all energy, upfront building costs rise and success depends more on securing power plants and grid access. If voters believe families will pay for system upgrades through higher bills, calls for pauses and attack ads gain support. The SLB $2 billion figure shows the upside for equipment and service sellers if building continues. The Gallup opposition and the Georgia-to-Iowa ad buys show the downside if projects stall.
