With November’s midterm elections approaching, President Donald Trump’s push for American leadership in artificial intelligence faces resistance at home. Washington wants more data centers. Many Americans question what those facilities will cost their communities.

A Pew Research Center report published September 22 found that 60% of adults would be uncomfortable with a new data center operating in their area. That included 54% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats, counting those who lean toward each party.

Discomfort is not blanket opposition to AI. Yet the numbers should sober officials promising an infrastructure boom. Citizens can favor technological leadership and still ask whether their own communities will carry an unfair share of its costs.

The unease is growing. Between January and August, the share describing data centers as mostly bad for nearby quality of life rose from 30% to 49%. Those saying data centers were mostly bad for household energy costs rose from 38% to 50%.

Wall Street has noticed. On an October 13 earnings call, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon warned of “localized political volatility around data centers.” Whether or not the issue swings a single congressional race, investors see a political risk Washington ignores at its peril.

The administration’s America’s AI Action Plan makes rapid data center construction a national priority, and its focus on China is warranted. Advanced computing drives scientific research and military capability, and none of it runs without reliable electricity.

The threat is concrete. On June 8, the Pentagon expanded its list of Chinese military companies to 188 entities, including Alibaba and Baidu. Alibaba sued on June 23 to contest its designation. Washington’s concern is that Beijing turns civilian technology to military use. Blacklisting suppliers addresses only part of that challenge; America also needs domestic computing capacity for its defense.

But a homeowner asking about a higher utility bill deserves an answer more specific than “China.” National security must not become a catch-all label for every commercial project. Officials seeking exceptional treatment for a project should explain its strategic purpose and why existing procedures are inadequate.

Transparency must run both ways. Residents should know who finances organized campaigns against a project and which developers seek tax breaks and favorable utility deals. Yet China’s strategic interests do not prove Chinese involvement in local opposition, and allegations require documented evidence. Questioning a rezoning proposal is a citizen’s right, and responsible national security analysis must respect it.

The practical work begins with electricity. On June 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directed six regional grid operators to justify or reform their rules for connecting large electricity users and to prevent cost shifting. Speed and ratepayer protection must advance together.

On October 9, FERC approved a large-load registry for PJM, the grid operator serving much of the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, but rejected its proposed curtailment service. The ruling leaves open how new data centers will obtain reliable power without burdening existing customers.

State utility regulators should require developers to pay costs attributable to their projects, including grid upgrades, with financial guarantees against abandoned commitments. Where an investment benefits other customers, regulators should explain the allocation publicly. Families should not discover an undisclosed subsidy in their monthly bills.

Developers must also bring credible power plans. New dedicated generation adds supply; deals that merely redirect existing electricity do not. Buying access to an existing power plant does not increase the nation’s generating capacity.

Natural gas and existing nuclear plants can help where spare capacity and grid connections exist. Small modular reactors will take years. The Department of Energy points to geothermal plants for steady power and underground thermal storage to cut peak cooling demand, though both depend on location and cost.

Better cooling helps, too. DOE guidance outlines ways to cut cooling water use. Communities should demand project-specific estimates and public reporting instead of accepting broad efficiency claims.

New hardware can shrink the footprint. On January 14, Vertiv announced prefabricated power and liquid-cooling modules for AI computing. Such equipment packs computing into less space, though a smaller building does not mean lower power demand.

More ambitious proposals move computing offshore or into orbit. On January 30, Elon Musk’s SpaceX asked federal regulators to approve up to one million solar-powered data center satellites. On May 4, Panthalassa announced $140 million in financing led by Peter Thiel for floating, wave-powered computing nodes cooled by seawater, targeting pilots in 2026 and commercial deployments in 2027.

Orbital and ocean computing must still prove it can run reliably at competitive cost and with acceptable environmental impact. Washington should encourage testing without assuming these systems can replace land-based capacity on the schedules now proposed.

Local agreements should set enforceable noise limits and water requirements. Officials should weigh promised jobs and tax revenue against concessions and public expenses. Industrial sites with adequate infrastructure deserve priority over locations that impose avoidable burdens on neighborhoods.

Washington can coordinate permits and explain defense requirements. State regulators must protect electricity customers, and local governments must give residents a meaningful hearing. Developers wanting timely decisions should disclose complete information early.

For Christians, these obligations flow from Scripture. God put man in the garden “to work it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15, ESV). Stewardship welcomes productive development and demands care for what God has entrusted to us. “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 11:1, ESV). Hiding a developer’s costs in a family’s utility bill is a false balance.

Christ’s command to love our neighbor applies to the family beside a proposed facility as surely as to those who benefit from its technology. It also obliges us to take seriously the security of Americans whose defense depends on that computing power.

America needs computing capacity to protect its people and outcompete China. Earning support for that capacity requires fair contracts and dependable power, with officials willing to refuse projects that fail those tests. Before asking citizens to support America’s AI ambitions at the ballot box, leaders should show how they will protect the communities asked to host them.