I've spoken to people who are like, "I don't really care.

I don't want them near me. "

I don't want them at all.

One of the things that strikes me so deeply about the data center conversation is how personal it is.

Like it is in people's backyards.

When you talk to folks who are opposed to specific projects, they may say something like, "I'm not opposed to AI, but why are they building it here?"

This is such an emotional issue.

I've never seen anything like so emotional resonate with folks about the built environment quite like this.

- Hey everyone from KQED in San Francisco, this is Political Breakdown.

I'm Marisa Lagos.

Today on The Breakdown, the construction of giant data centers used to power artificial intelligence have become a flashpoint in communities across the nation ahead of the November midterm elections with rare bipartisan opposition emerging.

We dig into why they're so controversial, how communities are responding, whether one party can capitalize on this moment, and if the anger is perhaps about something more than just the centers.

But first, the growing divide on Israel in American politics, KQED politics correspondent Guy Marzorati is here with me.

One day after nearly one half of House Democrats voted to cut off aid to Israel.

It is a remarkable shift that comes as progressive candidates running on the same issue sweep a number of House primaries this spring, setting up a potential challenge for House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Guy, you have been following all of this.

First of all, tell us what this legislation was that did get ultimately voted down yesterday, but what was in it?

Who wrote it?

- Yeah, so this was an amendment to the State Department's Appropriations Bill that was never really had a chance of passing.

It was brought forward by Republican Thomas Massey of Kentucky who's a lame duck and also really sits kind of on the, the furthest edges of isolationism in the Republican Party.

He pretty much imposes all kind of US aid to foreign countries.

But why was this allowed to come forward for a vote?

Largely because it's an issue that Republican leadership felt would divide Democrats and in the end it did exactly that.

So while this is not, you know, a well-thought out policy that was developed over a long period of time and debated, what it provides is a really crude snapshot of where the Democratic Party and where Democratic Party leadership is on this and as we saw really divided.

- Right.

It is split.

And I want to be clear, this is not just a measure that would've cut off, say, offensive military aid.

This was all aid and that was one thing we heard from some people who opposed it.

But it, it broke down kind of interestingly.

I mean, two years ago, only 37 House Democrats voted for a similar measure.

This time it was 103 out of 211, 10 voted present.

What does that tell you and, and what did we see?

Like is there any method to how this broke down within the Democratic Caucus?

- Yeah, I think what you are seeing is a seed change within the Democratic Party around views on Israel.

And what you could view this vote as largely is Democratic leaders coming to where Democratic voters are.

I mean, you have polling out this week from the Washington Post that three quarters of Democrats want to either cut or reduce military aid to Israel.

That's where the, the party's electorate is and now we're seeing that's where party leadership in the House is going.

When you end up in a scenario where more Democrats nationally voted for this than voted against it, more Democrats in California voted for this than voted against it, you are seeing kind of shifts in, in where party leaders are.

And you're seeing it interestingly, I think when you break down the vote here, this was not a vote that party leadership whipped in one way or another, right?

They weren't encouraging members take this position or that.

So you really saw a breakdown that reflected a lot of political realities in blue districts where this, as we've seen, has become a wedge issue in primary elections.

And you see Democratic members, especially in places like the Bay Area, widespread support where they really feel like that's where voters are, Democratic primary voters are, and a little bit of a different calculus maybe in swing districts where we saw folks like Adam Gray voted against this measure to cut funding.

Derek Tran in Orange County voted for it.

So there I think that maybe reflects a real reality that this is less likely to be a driving issue maybe in those swing districts, but certainly in blue primaries and you're seeing this across the country, you saw it in New York, in Colorado, in the upcoming Michigan Senate primary, this is a really divisive issue in Democratic primaries.

- Right.

And you still do have some members of the Democratic Caucus who are just hardcore supporters of Israel and really lashed out.

Brad Sherman of Los Angeles who has a big Jewish population in his district had this to say about the bill.

- This amendment is a political stunt.

Republican leadership has brought it to the floor, not for the purpose of having it become law, but for the purpose of driving a wedge through the middle of the Democratic Party.

For the purpose of facilitating Republican advertisements that will put our party on the side who are of those who are screaming death to America and death to Israel.

- Okay.

Well they, that may be true in the sense that Republicans do want to capitalize on this.

I mean, I was watching Fox News this morning.

You had former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that saying, you know, your anti-Netanyahu is just as good as saying you're anti-Jewish.

I don't think that's the way voters are looking at this though, and that's not just Democratic like progressive voters, right?

I mean, that poll you mentioned really has almost all groups opposing at least more aid to Israel or just all aid.

- Yeah.

And look, we are starting to see some fault lines within the Republican Party on this issue.

I would say there's still probably a few cars behind where Democrats are in the motorcade, but you're starting to see little signs of change.

There was a, a poll earlier this year from Pew that found voters, Republican voters under age 50 disapprove of Israel.

There's a stark generational divide there.

You saw when Democratic Congressmember Ro Kanna got into an incident with Israelis in the West Bank this past weekend, Tucker Carlson blasted the US ambassador to Israel and saying he didn't do enough to defend Ro Khanna.

So you're starting to see that divide.

I certainly think it's much more likely to become a wedge issue in the Democratic presidential primary.

I mean, just think ahead to 2028.

It's hard to imagine this issue and whoever the next nominee is ending up with a far different position on US-Israeli relations than a Bill Clinton, than a Barack Obama, than a Joe Biden.

Just think about an issue like immigration and how far Biden got pushed in the 2020 primary.

You'd have to expect something similar in the Democratic presidential primary, but maybe that could happen on the Republican side too.

- Right.

And I think to your point, I mean, this is a an issue that has shifted very quickly, very dramatically, right?

Just 10 years ago, this was a nonpartisan question, whether you supported aid to Israel.

And as, you know, we're talking about here, there is still a Republican Democratic divide, but among non - MAGA affiliated Republicans, they're basically evenly split on this question of whether we should be aiding Israel.

You have only a majority over the age of 65 saying they want to increase or keep support at the current level.

So like that is not how we see issues generally break down.

I know you talked to some of these members this week, Guy.

- Yeah.

And, and in particular, Mark DeSaulnier, he's a Democrat in the East Bay.

And I kind of asked him first to just explain his thinking in, in voting to support this amendment.

And I think he, like many Democrats, felt like they were kind of forced into this, that there was some kind of political maneuvering in putting this to, to a vote.

- So this is what we had in front of us as Democrats as an opportunity to express our opinion.

And it's important to remember in terms of splitting us, it doesn't split the majority, most, almost all of us, and I just speak for myself, very strongly believe in Israel's right to exist as a functioning democracy in the Middle East.

However, I very strongly disagree with the current administration.

- Now, a couple of things that's, that's interesting there.

You, he referenced the administration, referring to the Netanyahu administration in Israel.

I do think Democrats have a crutch right now in Netanyahu.

The fact that he, he has so gone after support on the right almost to the exclusion of having any interest in appealing in a bipartisan way to Americans and to the Democratic Party.

It's become a way for Democrats to say, look, we have real issues with the Netanyahu administration and how they're carrying out actions in the West Bank, the war in Gaza.

You have to wonder though, what does that look like in a world beyond Netanyahu?

It's hard to imagine public opinion on the Democratic side just snapping back to where it was five, five, 10 years ago.

- And Netanyahu represents a political movement in Israel.

I mean, right.

- But even beyond him.

- And the way that they have comported themselves in Gaza, in the West Bank, I think e- even if Netanyahu is out of politics tomorrow, that, that vein still exists in Israel, Israeli politics, right?

-Yeah.

-So.

- The, the other thing I'll just say with DeSaulnier that was interesting, he's a real student of history.

And, and I asked him like, "Can you think of any other issue on which, to your point, public opinion in, in the Democratic Party has shifted so quickly?"

He really felt like this was unique in that regard.

He mentioned gay marriage, LGBTQ rights as something with some kind of parallel, but it is just to your point, incredible how quickly this is really snapped on the Democratic Party.

- Yeah, and as I mentioned at the top, it's not just the current caucus.

It's looking ahead to next year.

You're seeing these primaries where folks who have really come out against the Israeli government are winning in New York and elsewhere.

But also, like you said, in some of these districts that aren't even, you know, on, on the sort of national radar, you had someone like Mike Thompson in the North Bay voting present instead of yes or no.

He was one of four California Democrats who voted present.

What do you make of the present vote?

What does that tell you?

Yeah, I think that's where you really see the political realities for Democrats in two seats.

One, Mike Thompson in the North Bay voting present.

Doris Matsui in Sacramento, who also, like Thompson, is getting a general election opponent who's a Democrat.

So here's a general election where this could potentially be an issue.

Doris Matsui voting for this amendment maybe to head off some kind of criticism for her Democratic opponent, Mai Vang.

So yes, there you saw really, I think, members deal with the political reality, but also folks who are not running again.

People like Nancy Pelosi, who is, you know, no longer has to kind of carry the torch of Democratic leadership in the House, can more so vote her district.

Clearly Pelosi's vote in supporting this amendment to cut aid to Israel is where Democrats in San Francisco would pull on this issue.

- And probably might have something to do with who she's supporting to replace her.

Connie Chan, her opponent, Scott Wiener, as we've talked about on the show, got a lot of pushback and a lot of anger for not calling it a genocide in Gaza sooner.

And so you wonder too, if Pelosi is both putting her finger in the wind to sort of think about the politics more broadly, but also about who she wants to see succeed her in Congress.

But I just wonder, like, you add her vote and she has been a staunch supporter of Israel her whole career, Right?

- As many of these - As Many of these folks have.

- Representatives have.

Yeah.

- And then you have Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader.

He has a big Orthodox Jewish community in his New York district.

He voted against this.

So did Pete Aguilar, one of his top aides, or his top lieutenants in Democratic Caucus, but a third did not, right?

And so you have this split.

And like you said, they didn't tell members how to vote.

I just do think that this is something to watch is like how do the Jeffries of the world handle this in the next six to nine months and then beyond?

- Yeah.

I mean, if we're looking at this as a Tea Party moment for Democrats, the ancillary is they're going to have a lot more members in the caucus if they win the majority that are on the left lank of the party.

And they're, that are going to cause these kind of headaches, these kind of splits in future votes around this very issue.

So I think this is just kind of a harbinger of what you're likely to see if Democrats take the House.

- Although I will note the difference between I think this group of Democrats and the Tea Party is the Democrats actually want to pass some things too, not just say no to things.

So that'll be an interesting... They're going to have to work with the leadership if they want to, you know, promote things like single payer or whatever, you know, their wishlist is.

All right.

Thank you, Guy.

- Yeah, thank you.

- Today, I am thrilled to have Molly Taft here.

Molly is a senior reporter at WIRED and has been covering the ongoing political and community battles over AI data centers.

Hey, Molly.

- Hi, thanks for having me.

- Well, thanks for being here.

And before we get too deep into the politics, can you just explain what a data center is?

Why do they exist?

Why are they needed?

And are they all about AI?

- Great question.

So data centers have been around for, for decades in the United States.

You honestly, until very recently, might have had one running up the road from you and you, you might not have noticed.

It's a pretty broad definition, but at its most basic, it's, it's a building or a facility that houses computers, racks of servers, and then these can do a variety of different things.

Until about five or so years ago, data centers were mostly to stream the internet, store stuff on the cloud.

Like anything and everything we do that needs substantial compute power behind it, a data center would run.

They were traditionally built in areas close to both political power centers like DC.

So Northern Virginia is like the densest stretch of data centers in the world as well as you know, places with good fiber connectivity.

Silicon Valley, another really popular place.

But then about five years ago or, you know, I think even, even more recently, 2022 was when ChatGPT launched, there was all of a sudden this explosion of data center, both chatter and actual construction.

And this is because AI is a lot more energy intensive to, to run and train AI.

And we made this huge breakthrough with LLMs.

These companies made this big breakthrough, and all of a sudden we're hearing all this stuff about how AI is going to revolutionize work, technology, science, our society.

Every facet of our life will be changed by AI.

And that kind of kicked off this big conversation about a national build-out as well as a national buildout of these data centers.

And, and AI data centers are a little bit different, mostly in size.

Again, because AI is so energy intensive, you're now seeing facilities that are absolutely massive, just really dwarfing the facilities that came before.

So the conversation has changed.

You know, we are talking about slightly different facilities, but we're also just talking about the scale of these that are getting built out.

And, and you know, the, the hype around AI as well factors into that conversation.

- Yeah.

I want to get to that, but I'm wondering, like, we hear a lot about, oh, they use so much energy, they use so much water, noise light pollution.

Like what are the downsides and upsides just on a practical level for people who maybe live or work around an AI data center?

- Totally.

I get this question all the time.

As an environmental journalist, I always say my number one concern with data centers is the possibility that they could, could up our, our CO2 pollution, you know, our, our carbon emissions.

Again, these are really energy intensive.

And in a perfect world, we would build them all with renewable energy.

We would use, you know, the opportunity presented by data centers to build all sorts of renewables across the country.

That's not really what's happening.

And in fact, the pace of this build out is incentivizing a lot of fossil fuel to be added to the grid.

So coal plants are saying open because utilities are under so much stress.

You know, there's a lot of private gas plants being built just to power these data centers.

So that's a really big concern of mine.

And, and you know, dirty fuel also can lead to local pollution in some cases.

I'm thinking of in Memphis, Elon Musk built his two data centers very quickly by trucking in unpermitted gas turbines into a majority Black community that already suffered some of the highest asthma rates in the country.

So, so these can be really serious if, if you don't, if you aren't careful with the type of energy that's, that's fueling them.

People are also really concerned about water and, and many data centers do use a decent amount of water.

Again, it really depends on the design.

A lot of data centers developers are moving away from designs that use water, but those, those data centers tend to use more energy, so you have a trade-off there.

And then communities based have noticed that these things can be really loud especially if there are gas turbines or diesel engines on site that are running.

You know, they're, they're, they're training AI at all hours of the day.

The data centers don't keep the same normal hours that humans do, so they can often run late in the night.

And especially for some of the larger facilities, if you are building a really big facility, you know, you will have light pollution at night to, to work through the night.

Again, a lot of the issues that come up with these things are the speed and the pace at which they're being built.

We don't see a lot of projects of this size really pushed, pushed forward with like the speed and urgency that we're seeing these build-outs.

And especially projects that I think for a lot of people don't, don't really interact with their lives at all.

So they're wondering what's going on, right?

- Right.

- It's not like a factory being built or something.

- Yeah.

I mean, I'm sitting here in California where we can barely build housing and it's kind of nuts that we're, you know, approving these million square foot data centers.

Okay, so we're building these giant centers and there's very little sort of federal oversight of them.

In fact, you recently reported that the Trump administration is essentially allowing a federal rule that outlines standards for usage and operations to expire.

So talk to me about first, I guess, like why is the Trump administration being so hands-off?

I mean, we've seen him and, and you know, everyone around him be real cheerleaders for AI.

Is this just sort of in line with that position?

- Yeah, I think that's a really big part of it, this administration.

You know, part of the reason they are in office was due to support from the tech Right like the tech, the tech world in general has really embraced the second Trump administration on the go - round.

You know, they have been very adamantly the messaging from the White House is American AI.

You know, there's a lot of emphasis on American companies to quote unquote win the AI race to develop, you know, these AI models and tools faster than China's always the adversary that's, that's tossed in there.

So there's a lot of emphasis on building AI and, you know, AI interests are very invested in getting... They need these data centers basically.

Right.

They need a lot of power behind what they're trying to do.

I also though think it's important to acknowledge that the big build out of infrastructure feeds into a lot of other interests.

You know, oil and gas especially like there, if you are, you need new energy demand.

If you're, if you're all of a sudden putting a lot of energy demand on the rid, there are people that, that would embrace more energy demand.

There are industries that, that see it as a benefit that we are building structures, right?

You know, I'm thinking of construction.

I'm thinking of rare, you know, minerals, mining.

These are, there are a lot of industries that the administration has historically been very receptive to who are also really stand to benefit from the massive build out of a bunch of computing facilities that need, you know, construction work.

They need they need concrete, they need power.

You know, this is a, this is also a physical build out.

And I think that's important to remember.

So not only are we having this kind of message around the need to go all hands on deck and, and you know, do as way with as many regulations as possible to win this race in AI, but you know, with the physical build out, there's this sense that we need to build these as fast as possible in order to keep up.

And, and there's a lot of really interesting interplay with industries there as well.

Right.

- And you, and you just have an administration that's anti-regulatory oversight in general.

Like so in that sort of vacuum, we've seen a lot of movement both on the local state and to some extent federal level.

We'll get to that in a minute.

But talk about what we've seen.

It's everything from, you know, a one-year moratorium in New York State, which was recently signed, to act all out bans in local cities like Monterey Park down in Los Angeles here in California.

What's the through line here?

Like what do we, and how are communities responding?

Is it more with like, "Hey, let's pause and take a minute," or is it more like, "Let's just n- none of them here?"

- That's such a good question.

And I think like one thing to really note is how fast this conversation is going.

I got to WIRED a little, you know, a little under a year and a half ago and I was reporting, I think in the 2025 legislative sessions, there were a few states that had data center, not moratoriums at all, but bills on the table, bills to, you know, regulate their energy use, maybe do some research.

Again, I think this goes back to my earlier point where like these things did not really make much of a stir until very recently.

So they're, they're generally zoned like other, you know, industrial or commercial sites.

There, there aren't a lot of specific regulations on them or they weren't at the local and state level.

And I think starting around, you know, the beginning of the last legislative session, a lot of state house, a lot of politicians suddenly woke up, realized that a lot of their constituents were very angry about this and also that these things were, were bringing some real problems with them.

Thinking about energy bills, you know?

There were a lot of utilities that started sounding the alarm and being like, "Hey, we are getting a lot of load from these data centers because they use so much electricity."

And, and it really is a... There are multiple risks here of just creating this whole new industry at such a fast clip that, that we should maybe take a step back.

So I think, you know, New York's moratorium was just pushed through by Kathy Hochel.

It was based on a bill that was introduced earlier this year.

And you know, I think it is based on what she said and what I've spoken to lawmakers about, it is a genuine pause.

It's a, it's a time to stop and to, to figure out how to do this right, you know, how to permit these data centers so they will be beneficial to communities so that they won't, you know, increase energy bills, so that they will be built with environmental responsibility in mind.

You know, this is, I think, a good faith effort for many lawmakers.

My of these pauses are, are genuinely trying to just be like, "Hold on a second, let's actually talk about this. "

- Yeah.

- But you know, I also think that there are a lot of communities where they... I've spoken to people who are like, "I don't really care.

I don't want them near me.

I don't want them at all. "

And there are a lot of people who are responding, "Why are we building these things at all? "

You know?

And that is a, that is a really... I think that kind of rubber is going to meet the road eventually if, you know, I would wager that a lot of the politicians who are making good faith efforts to put in these moratoriums, to put in these safeguards would eventually be interested in a genuinely helpful, profitable industry coming in to help build some of these data centers.

I don't know if voters will get there.

I, I really don't.

Well, - That kind of gets to how I think the data center issue is combining with our other anxieties around not just AI, but the state of our economy, energy prices, all of these things.

And I think it's really interesting, you know, putting the Trump administration's sort of full-throated endorsement of AI aside, you do see folks, his allies, Ron DeSantis in Florida, you know, calling for consumer protections.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott calling for regulations to essentially make these, you know, places pay their own way and saying that there should be a ban in rural places.

So this is a bipartisan movement.

And then on the national level, you have Bernie Sanders, of course, most famous democratic socialist in America saying we need a national moratorium, but he's not just tying it to all these energy and water issues you're talking about.

He's saying this should be essentially tied to overall AI safety.

So talk about that.

Like how, how is that tying into this?

And I don't know, like does this run into some problems?

Because as you said, we are in a race with places like China for this stuff.

So if we just like say no data centers at all, I think there could be like even national security concerns here, right?

- This is the big question.

I, I also, look, Congress at the start of the Trump, first Trump administration was not prepared to handle anything close to the AI conversations we're now having.

I mean, they're so behind on anything having to do with tech.

It's, it's pretty, it's pretty laughable that this like accelerated conversation about both data centers and AI is happening with a Congress that's like, whoa, whoa, whoa.

- I mean, look how well we did on social media, right?

Like - Exactly, right?

We're like, you know, the conversation is like decades behind.

So I think the interplay of both AI safety and, you know, AI safety, the AI safety world is like a very sort of... It's kind of crazy that when you, when you talk to folks who are involved in the AI safety world because they're like, "Oh, yeah, no, there's a 10% chance that this destroys humanity."

And you're like, "Wait, what?

That's crazy."

I think most people have more normal concerns about AI, like, what will it do with my job?

Right.

You Know, like, what will my kids be exposed to?

Like, these are very real and practical concerns.

Labor is a huge question.

Like, what's, what are we all going to do if there aren't any more jobs?

And that's the tension I think Senator Sanders is trying to tap into.

I really don't think the political world is prepared for that conversation that I do think is kind of messily emerging from this conversation over data centers.

I don't think if you pull an average data center protestor aside that they'll say they're thinking about the existential risk of AI all the time, but they will be asking questions about other anxieties that they have.

Like you, like you mentioned, if we can't build housing, what are we doing building this?

You Know, Why are we giving Mark Zuckerberg, you know, Sam Altman free reign to build whatever they want in my backyard that might, might raise my utility bills?

And in this sense, I do think there, there is a pretty interesting split happening on the conservative side right now and a lot of the MAGA populist base, you mentioned DeSantis, but you know Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first politicians I noticed to call out data center development.

The populist right is actually pretty situated to respond to this.

This taps into a lot of grievances that they've had for a very long time about, about tech and about oligarchs and, and those grievances are resonating.

- Yeah.

And The economy, like back to like the decimation of, you know, factories and other sort of blue collar jobs in middle America, the, the, you know, there's a lot of concern over not just these being built near cities, but on rural land, on farmland.

Yes.

I mean, this really does run the gamut.

So I want to spend the last couple minutes I have with you talking about the politics heading into November and beyond because I imagine this is playing out in a lot of candidate races and I'm, I'm wondering given what we just discussed, like, is one party poised to capitalize on this better than the other?

- That's the billion dollar question.

If you can answer that, then you have a permanent job in politics.

I think that's what everyone is wondering right now.

You know, on the national stage the, the politicians that have gotten the most attention for being explicitly anti-data center or pro - extensive standard style moratorium are are progressive.

They are on the left.

But you know, that's also they are running smart campaigns.

I spoke with Will Lawrence, who is running in Michigan in a pretty crowded Democratic primary.

He's gotten Senator Sanders' endorsement.

Will is one of the founders of the Sunrise Movement, and he told me like this data center stuff is helping me understand why people are opposed to building renewable energy as well.

Wow.

Like It's rally helping people bridge conversations about other grievances.

I, my personal sense just from speaking with voters, from speaking with folks in opposition groups, is that this is causing a lot of really messy political dynamics on the local levels especially.

And I think if you are a national kind of mainstream Democrat or Republican, your challenge is how to meet your voters where they're at with their opposition to data centers.

But if you, if you don't want to stifle business development, that's going to be the challenge of the next couple of years how to balance this outrage with responsible development.

And you know, I think if I was a tech CEO, I would be kicking myself right now.

I don't think they anticipated that they were going to get this level of backlash.

And so there's been a movement from, you know, the, the large AI companies to we're going to, we're going to pay taxes.

We won't take tax breaks.

We're going to pay for all of our own energy.

You know, we will help the community, we'll enrich the community.

And I don't know if that's going to land or if it's going to keep, you know?

I think that's a really big question.

- Well, part of that too is like there's this sort of vein of economic populism around like the promise of AI we've seen.

And so Governor Gavin Newsom here in California, obviously eyeing a potential run for president in 2028, rolled out this proposal that was sort of a broader one about economic populism, but one of his specific proposals within that was giving the public a financial stake in AI companies.

And this is something actually Bernie Sanders and President Trump have also floated.

You know, different iterations of this idea, but essentially like, you know, giving the public a cut of this potential windfall.

I, I guess I wonder if you think about understanding that individual communities are going to be concerned about their own energy cost and what, you know, the, the fairgrounds look like.

That's, that's one here in California.

They want to build all these on fairgrounds apparently.

Yeah.

It, it does seem to me that some of this broader economic anxiety is underlying some of this.

So like I just wonder when you hear that type of proposal from a politician like Newsom, what does it tell you?

And do you think that there's any world in which we actually start getting checks from AI companies?

- Again, another, another... Look, I, my sense is no.

I think It's an interesting proposal, you know?

I think it's... And it is fascinating that like you've got like the three points of like a different political spectrum, like Newsom, Trump standards, right?

It's interesting that everyone's kind of brainstorming.

And you know, I, I think it's, it's an interesting proposal, but again, one of the things that strikes me so deeply about the data center conversation is how personal it is.

Like it is in people's backyards.

When you talk to folks who are opposed to specific projects, they may say something like, "I'm not opposed to AI, but why are they building it here?"

It is in places where people grew up.

It's, it's, it is fabric of their physical place that they already, you know, are feeling maybe threatened by, by various other forces.

And that is so personal that I don't know if even some money on a check will, will be able to counterbalance the kind of like gut reaction of having these built.

This is like a really, this is such an emotional issue.

I've never seen anything like so emotional resonate with folks about the built environment quite like this.

And so again, I think it's a big question for, for politicians on how to handle this.

And you know, a public stake in AI companies is one thing, but the question is whether people will connect the dots between the two things, right?

Right.

Yeah.

- That is Molly Taft.

They're a senior reporter at Wired.

Molly, thank you so much.

- Thank you for having me.

- And that is a wrap for Thursday, July 16th, Political Breakdowns of Production of KQED.

Our engineer today is Christopher Beale.

Our producer is Izzy Bloom.

Our video team includes Derek Lartaud, Jim McKee, Hazel Tesoro, Matt Morales, Vivian Morales, and Gilare Zada.

I'm Marisa Lagos.

I know my own name.

See you next time.