Billionaire and Trump Admin Link Data Center Protests to Foreign Plot

SALT LAKE CITY — Amid rising public opposition to data center construction across the United States, a prominent billionaire and the Trump administration are alleging that foreign powers, particularly China, are orchestrating the backlash. These claims, however, are largely unsubstantiated and have drawn criticism from a broad spectrum of political and technological allies, who argue they ignore legitimate domestic concerns.

The controversy intensified last week when demonstrators in Salt Lake City protested a vast 40,000-acre data center project in Utah, backed by "Shark Tank" investor Kevin O’Leary. In a video released Monday, O’Leary accused "nefarious accounts out of the country" linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of fueling the protests with disinformation, aiming to impede America’s artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure development.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum echoed O'Leary's assertions on Fox Business, stating on Tuesday that data center projects nationwide are being "bombarded with foreign-directed propaganda." He characterized this as an "attack on the U.S. and our ability to be competitive." Several think tanks aligned with the tech industry and the Trump administration have also published reports alleging that opposition to data centers is not organic but rather a "coordinated campaign financed in substantial part by foreign donors."

Despite these strong allegations, neither O’Leary, a Canadian national, nor Burgum has presented conclusive evidence to support claims of widespread foreign influence. The reports cited by proponents of the foreign plot theory generally point to grants received by U.S. environmental groups from overseas donors, often with progressive agendas. However, the amounts are typically in the tens of thousands of dollars, a tiny fraction of the "millions, hundreds of millions of dollars" O'Leary claimed were in a foreign-financed "slush fund" targeting the Utah opposition.

Critically, the U.S. groups receiving these grants dedicate minimal resources to data center issues. For example, a $460,000 donation highlighted on a website linked to O'Leary's firm, supposedly for the Put Utah First PAC, was actually allocated to an unsuccessful Senate campaign in 2022, not data center opposition. Groups like the Wyss Foundation, Code Pink, and Alliance for a Better Utah, singled out in various reports, have vehemently denied these allegations, calling them "false and defamatory" and "laughable."

The claims have generated significant pushback even from unexpected quarters, including tech insiders, China hawks, White House-aligned conservatives, and Trump voters actively protesting data centers in their own communities. Kyle Schmidt, a three-time Trump voter who organized opposition to a Google data center in Oklahoma, dismissed the foreign plot narrative as "gaslighting 101," emphasizing that local communities are funding their fight through small donations and grassroots efforts.

Ryan Fedasiuk, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, acknowledged that CCP-led propaganda is a real issue but warned that dismissing widespread American concerns as foreign-driven could backfire. "Telling the hundreds of millions of Americans who are today anti-AI ‘Your opinions were paid for by the CCP’ is not a winning political message," Fedasiuk wrote on X.

Indeed, national surveys reveal a significant disconnect between the administration's narrative and public sentiment. A Gallup survey earlier this year found that over 70% of Americans oppose data center construction in their communities. Broader skepticism of AI is also prevalent, with multiple surveys indicating that most Americans anticipate negative societal impacts and job losses due to the technology.

Industry veterans and experts also express frustration with the focus on foreign conspiracies. Daniel Golding, a former global data center infrastructure director at Google, stated that the industry has "not handled this backlash well." He criticized the lack of efforts to explain the benefits of data centers to the public, concluding that "public engagement is an area Big Tech is not really good at." Nii Osae, CEO of Mindbeam AI, suggested the industry's rapid pursuit of AI infrastructure has prioritized "Wall Street friendly" over "people friendly" outcomes.

Tennessee State Representative Justin Pearson, who led local opposition to Elon Musk’s xAI data centers near Memphis due to pollution concerns, urged tech leaders to engage directly with communities rather than discredit voters. "You are trying to delegitimize people who you’ve never met in communities you’ve never visited, so that you can continue to exploit the lives of people that you don’t give a damn about," Pearson asserted. The ongoing debate highlights a critical challenge for the U.S. AI buildout: how to address legitimate public grievances without resorting to potentially divisive and unsubstantiated claims of foreign interference.

FAQ

Q: What are the main concerns driving public opposition to data centers?

A: Americans largely oppose data centers due to concerns about their significant environmental impact, including high electricity and water usage, noise pollution, and the potential negative effects of AI on society and job availability.

Q: What evidence has been presented to support the claims of foreign influence?

A: Proponents of the foreign plot theory primarily point to philanthropic grants from overseas donors or internationally connected foundations to U.S. environmental and advocacy groups. However, direct evidence linking these funds to a foreign-orchestrated campaign against data centers is largely absent, and the amounts identified are often a tiny fraction of what has been alleged.

Q: How have critics responded to these claims?

A: Critics, including conservative analysts, tech insiders, and Trump voters, argue that the claims are a form of "gaslighting" that discredits legitimate grassroots opposition. They warn that such accusations could alienate the public further and hinder the advancement of U.S. AI ambitions, emphasizing the need for the tech industry to better engage with community concerns.