arktimes.com · Jennifer Lenow · September 8, 2026
Data center backlash reveals bugs in the political system - or are they features? - Arkansas Times
# Data center backlash reveals bugs in the political system — or are they features?
by Jennifer Lenow September 8, 2026 4:33 pm September 8, 2026 4:33 pm
Protesters get loud about data centers in Little Rock on April 22, 2026. Credit: Brian Chilson
When I attended a protest in April against Google’s proposed data center in Little Rock, I complimented a woman on her sign that read “We can’t drink data!” She replied, somewhat to my dismay, “Thanks! I used AI to create it!” (The sign was handwritten so I assume she employed a Large Language Model, or LLM, to brainstorm catchy slogans.) This exchange encapsulates the multitudes, and contradictions, that exist within the coalition of everyday people resisting data center construction across the country.
Though there has been much debate locally over the last few months about Google’s data center project at the Port of Little Rock, this is not the first or only data center Google wants to build in Arkansas. Google has already begun construction on a sprawling data center campus near West Memphis, one that is so energy-intensive that the utility company, Entergy, needs to build a new $1.6 billion solar power station to fuel it. Google and Entergy have both said it would Google — as opposed to regular ratepayers — that will cover all of the costs, a statement seemingly at odds with documents obtained from the Arkansas Public Service Commission that suggest Google has only agreed to a one-time payment covering just 1/3 of the total projected costs.
Concerns over rising utility costs are only heightened by sustained inflation, widening wealth inequality and economic precarity (prognostications that artificial intelligence, or AI, will replace millions of jobs don’t ease the insecurity). There are many other reasons to oppose data centers — on behalf of other species for whom such construction projects pose a habitat threat or on behalf of our own, in terms of noise, water and air pollution.
While some people outright reject what new data centers have come to symbolize and portend – an economy increasingly dependent on and organized around AI – others, be they tech-agnostic or even tech-enthusiastic, might simply not want data centers in their backyard.
One perhaps overlooked dimension of the widespread, ideologically diverse opposition to data centers is the degree to which these projects symbolically and materially represent the lack of control people feel they have over their lives, public resources and the general direction of society. People want to see their government working to deliver healthcare, not AI. Both the capitalist organization of our economy and our government, at local, state and federal levels, are implicated in creating this feeling of powerlessness. And although the government is in many ways constrained by capital (the government doesn’t run the economy or control private investments), elected officials should strive to foster as much autonomy and self-determination for everyday people as possible.
People seem to be reclaiming some of this control themselves, through popular protest and collective action. Amid an otherwise depressing maelstrom of news this summer, full of war and fire and disease, it is heartening and inspiring to see thousands of ordinary people across the country — and across the political spectrum — realize their own collective power. While in a truly democratic society people would have more than the ability to refuse and resist, to collectively utter the word “no” — they would have meaningful control over the decisions that shape their lives and futures — this is a start, and elected officials, in Little Rock and elsewhere, would be wise to pay attention.
With over $700 billion being invested in a massive AI infrastructure buildout, nearly 3,000 new data centers are in some stage of planning or development in the United States. Neither our electrical grid nor our regulatory framework are equipped to meet this demand.
And what, exactly, are these new data centers for? To what end, and for whose benefit, are we frantically building this massive infrastructure? While there is currently demand for more computing power from tech companies, there is not necessarily consumer demand for the AI models that the tech companies are building, at least not in proportion to the level of investment. Some of these data centers, whose footprints will long outlast their use value, are being built entirely on spec, based on the assumption that there will be even more demand in a nebulous and slightly sinister AI-powered future. Is the entire economy, and government, caught up in a Silicon Valley fever dream?
Locked in a largely hype-driven industrial arms race, tech companies are operating under an imperative to out-build one another. Yet no tech company has demonstrated or even articulated a plausible business plan that would warrant such capital expenditure. Profits, now and for the foreseeable future, are completely theoretical. But if there are profits to be had, it will be the tech companies that reap them. Most of the negative externalities will be borne by local residents and displaced workers.
So it’s not terribly surprising that, according to a recent Gallup poll, over 70% of Americans oppose local data center construction. But it’s not just concerns around specific project proposals or even AI in general driving this sentiment. Such opposition can also be read as symptomatic of deeper, and more diffuse, political disaffection and populist energy — phenomena that have been sporadically showing up in primary and general elections across the country, with anti-establishment insurgent candidates gaining popularity in both parties.
People are unhappy with the status quo and don’t feel like those at the helm of either our political or economic systems are looking out for them. Indeed, polls reveal a near all-time low of 17% of American people espousing any faith in the government, while only 54% have a positive view of capitalism and 53% of Americans think that billionaires pose a threat to democracy.
In the context of local data center struggles, like the one playing out in Little Rock right now, such faith is unlikely to be restored by elected government officials or their close partners in the Chamber of Commerce signing non-disclosure agreements and quietly acquiescing to backroom deals with minimal oversight or public input. And then defending their decisions, as City Director Capi Peck recently did, with messages akin to, “You don’t know what’s good for you.” These statements not only come off as elitist and out of touch, but as an abdication of civic responsibility — or even as outright collusion with tech oligarchs.
When politicians side with business interests over popular opinion, constituents often reach for explanations of financial self-interest and bribery. But the reasons are often more subtle and complex — and structural.
Politicians are compelled to side with capital not only for knee-jerk ideological reasons but because cities do largely depend on private investments. Most of the U.S. economy is privately owned, with capitalists and private investors — as opposed to government agencies, civic organizations, unions or everyday people — controlling where and what to invest money in. Municipalities, legally and politically constrained in how much revenue they can raise, are dependent on private investments for their tax bases and budgets.
But local government leaders have more latitude and power than they think — in terms of revenue they can raise (with financial instruments like municipal bonds), costs they can save (improved government efficiency), concessions they can extract (making any tax exemptions contingent on certain requirements), and community-led programs and pro-worker initiatives they can support.
We need creative inte