Tag: AI Preemption

  • Ten Questions Every Candidate and Elected Official Should Answer About Data Centers and AI

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    Voters deserve specific answers about who pays for data centers, who is accountable, and what happens if AI does not deliver. Here are ten questions you can put to any candidate or sitting official, with the evidence behind each, what a strong answer sounds like, and what evasion looks like.

    This is a nonpartisan tool. We score the quality of an answer, meaning whether it is specific, honest about tradeoffs and accountable, and not whether it matches our views. A candidate who answers concretely in favor of a policy we would not choose earns the same points as one who answers concretely against it. Send the same ten questions to every candidate, give everyone the same deadline, and publish the answers word for word.

    How to score

    For each question, give each answer 0, 1 or 2 points:

    • 2 points: a clear position, a specific mechanism, and an honest acknowledgment of a tradeoff or limit.
    • 1 point: a clear position without a mechanism, or a mechanism without a position.
    • 0 points: no answer, a deflection, or generalities that could mean anything.

    A total of 16 to 20 suggests a candidate who has thought hard about the whole picture. A total of 10 to 15 suggests a developing view. Below 10 suggests the issue has not yet been taken seriously. This is a conversation tool, not a scientific rating, and we encourage independent groups, newsrooms and civic organizations to score the answers themselves.

    Question 1: Who is accountable?

    The question: If a data center proposal comes before your body, who in government is responsible for weighing power, water, land, taxes and jobs together? Who should be?

    Why it matters: The pieces of this decision are split among utility commissions, economic development offices, zoning boards and treasurers, and no one answers to voters for the combination.

    A strong answer names a person or office and a mechanism, such as a standing committee, a technology director or an elected leader, and says how voters can hold them to account.

    Red flags: “The market will sort it out,” or an answer that lists existing agencies without saying who coordinates them.

    Question 2: Will you sign secret agreements?

    The question: Will you sign a nondisclosure agreement about a development project, and will you support limits on them?

    Why it matters: An NBC News review of more than 30 data center proposals in 14 states found that in a majority of cases local officials signed NDAs. Records requests in Louisiana turned up 54 NDAs signed by elected officials since early 2024. Microsoft says it is working to end active NDAs governments have signed.

    A strong answer gives a clear yes or no, says when confidentiality ends (for example, before any public vote), and explains how legitimate trade secrets would be protected.

    Red flags: “NDAs are standard practice” with no limit, or a blanket promise with no mention of how negotiations would work.

    Question 3: Who pays for the grid?

    The question: Should the largest new electricity users pay the full cost of the grid upgrades built to serve them? Should that be mandatory or optional, and what minimum commitments should they make?

    Why it matters: The Ratepayer Protection Act passed the House 417 to 3 and then failed a Senate procedural vote 57 to 43, largely over whether the protection should be optional or mandatory. At the state level, 23 states had approved at least one large-load tariff as of May. Ohio’s AEP tariff requires 85 percent minimum payments and at least twelve-year contracts, and Dominion’s Virginia tariff requires 14-year contracts and $1.5 million per megawatt of collateral.

    A strong answer takes a side on mandatory versus optional and names at least one term, such as minimum bills, contract length, collateral or exit fees.

    Red flags: “Make Big Tech pay their fair share” with no mechanism, or “markets will handle it.”

    Question 4: Do you support tax breaks, and on what conditions?

    The question: Do you support tax incentives for data centers? If so, what conditions, such as job targets, sunset dates and clawbacks, should come with them? If not, why not?

    Why it matters: Thirty-eight states offer data center incentives, and at least 28 considered scaling them back this year. In Ohio, the break cost state and local governments about $2 billion in a year. The jobs are mostly temporary: an Illinois study projected 121,000 jobs from $57 billion of investment, but only 2,800 permanent direct positions, while a Reno facility’s records estimated 73 permanent jobs.

    A strong answer takes a position either way, separates temporary from permanent jobs, and says how results would be measured.

    Red flags: Quoting job totals without saying how many are permanent, or promising “jobs and growth” without numbers.

    Question 5: Who gets a say before approval?

    The question: Should data centers be allowed by right, or should each one require a public hearing and discretionary approval? Where should the final decision sit?

    Why it matters: Loudoun County eliminated by-right zoning for data centers, and Harrisonburg, Virginia, moved them to special-use permits. Loudoun also credits favorable zoning and fast approvals for accelerating its growth. There is a real tradeoff between speed and consent.

    A strong answer describes a process, such as hearings, timelines and standards, and acknowledges the tradeoff.

    Red flags: “Let the community decide” with no process, or “get out of the way” with no protection for residents.

    Question 6: What about water, land and cleanup?

    The question: What studies, standards and financial guarantees should a data center have to meet for water, noise, farmland and eventual closure?

    Why it matters: Linn County, Iowa, requires a water study and a water-use agreement before construction and also covers decommissioning bonds. Few places have anything comparable.

    A strong answer names specific requirements and who would enforce them.

    Red flags: “Environmentally responsible” with no specifics.

    Question 7: How do we build enough, fast enough?

    The question: How would you make sure America builds enough power and computing capacity to compete, without bypassing the public?

    Why it matters: BloombergNEF expects China to add more than six times as much generating capacity as the United States over five years, and Morgan Stanley has forecast a 44-gigawatt shortfall for U.S. data centers. At the same time, AEP Ohio’s pipeline reportedly fell from roughly 30 GW to 13 GW once it had a tariff, so not every request is real.

    A strong answer addresses generation, transmission and permitting, and distinguishes real projects from speculative ones.

    Red flags: An answer that is only “beat China” or only “stop the data centers.”

    Question 8: Who bears the loss if the boom slows?

    The question: If AI investment slows or reverses, who bears the losses, and what would you do now so residents are not left holding the bag?

    Why it matters: Hyperscalers will spend about $750 billion this year, borrowing heavily. Jefferies warns that AI investment was the main driver of U.S. economic growth last year after consumer spending, and The Economist notes that more than half the spending goes to equipment that becomes obsolete within a few years.

    A strong answer names protections such as collateral, minimum bills, exit fees or cleanup bonds, without predicting a crash.

    Red flags: Either “this can’t fail” or doom with no plan.

    Question 9: What is your plan for the tax base?

    The question: Has your government modeled what happens to revenue if AI displaces significant work, or if data center revenue falls? What reserves and triggers are in place?

    Why it matters: A RAND analysis found that 84 percent of federal revenue comes from individual and payroll taxes. Loudoun County reports that data centers generate 38 percent of its general fund revenue, and New York City’s Comptroller recommended a reserve of 16 percent of annual tax revenue in response to AI risk.

    A strong answer says what share of revenue is exposed and describes a scenario plan and reserve.

    Red flags: “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

    Question 10: Should Congress override state AI laws?

    The question: Should federal law preempt state AI rules? If so, what federal protections and enforcement would replace them, and who would administer them? (For state and local candidates: what role should your jurisdiction keep?)

    Why it matters: The Senate voted 99 to 1 against an early preemption proposal, while 29 states enacted AI legislation in 2026. Even the White House’s approach would leave data center infrastructure to the states.

    A strong answer takes a position, names the enforcement mechanism and says who is accountable for it.

    Red flags: “Washington can’t be trusted” or “states can’t be trusted” with no alternative.

    Which questions fit which office

    • City council or county board: Questions 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9.
    • State legislature or governor: Questions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10.
    • Congress: Questions 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
    • Bonus question for everyone: Will you publish your meetings with developers, utilities and lobbyists on this issue?

    The case against our case

    • Scorecards reward rehearsed answers. A well-coached candidate can sound specific without meaning it. That is why we ask for mechanisms and why we suggest publishing answers in full and comparing them with later votes.
    • Not every office has the power. A county commissioner cannot set federal policy, and a member of Congress cannot rezone land. The “which office” guide above is meant to keep the questions fair.
    • Ten questions oversimplify. Real issues have more dimensions, and some candidates will rightly say “it depends.” We would count a thoughtful “it depends”, with the conditions named, as a strong answer.
    • We might be seen as scoring for our side. Our proposal for elected technology leaders is not the only acceptable answer to Question 1, and a different structure can score full points. We would prefer that a neutral organization do the scoring.

    Print-ready list

    1. Who in government is responsible for weighing power, water, land, taxes and jobs together, and who should be?
    2. Will you sign a nondisclosure agreement about a development project, and will you support limits on them?
    3. Should the largest new electricity users pay the full cost of grid upgrades built to serve them, and should that be mandatory or optional?
    4. Do you support tax incentives for data centers, and on what conditions?
    5. Should data centers be allowed by right, or require a public hearing and discretionary approval?
    6. What studies, standards and guarantees should a data center meet for water, noise, land and cleanup?
    7. How would you make sure America builds enough power and capacity to compete, without bypassing the public?
    8. If AI investment slows, who bears the losses, and what would you do now to protect residents?
    9. Has your government modeled what happens to revenue if AI displaces work or data center revenue falls?
    10. Should Congress override state AI laws, and if so, what replaces them and who administers it?

    Use it

    Send these to every candidate and every sitting official you can reach, at every level, and ask for answers in writing by a stated date. Publish what comes back. If you are a candidate, answer before you are asked. Our proposal is at department.technology/.

  • Preemption Without an Owner: Why the Federal-State AI Fight Needs Someone Accountable

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    Washington is arguing over whether federal law should override state AI rules. Both sides have real arguments. But whoever wins, someone has to enforce the result and answer to voters for it, and right now no one does.

    Few questions in technology policy have produced more heat than federal preemption: whether Congress should replace the growing body of state AI laws with a single national standard. This piece does not argue that preemption is right or wrong. We lay out the strongest case on each side, review what the record shows, and make one claim that holds under either outcome: a national standard, or a patchwork, without a named, accountable owner is not a policy. It is a vacuum.

    The case for a national standard

    Supporters of preemption make an argument that deserves a fair hearing. AI development does not stop at state borders, they say, and companies facing dozens of different rules face rising compliance costs that favor the largest firms. In December 2025, a presidential executive order called for a uniform national framework, directed the Justice Department to challenge state laws it deemed onerous, and tied some federal broadband funding to state policy. Industry groups and senators including Ted Cruz have argued for explicit federal preemption of conflicting state laws, and some supporters now say the longer Congress waits, the harder preemption becomes as more state laws pile up.

    In March 2026, the White House sent Congress a national framework that called for preempting burdensome state AI laws, with exceptions for child safety, general consumer-protection and fraud laws, state procurement and state zoning for AI infrastructure.

    The case against

    Opponents make an equally serious argument. States, they say, are closer to the people affected and can respond faster than Congress, and preemption without enforceable federal protections would leave residents with fewer remedies than they have today. The opposition has been broad. In July 2025, the Senate voted 99 to 1 against a proposed state AI moratorium. When it returned in the defense bill, more than 300 state lawmakers from across the political spectrum urged Congress to reject it, and prominent Republicans including Senator Josh Hawley, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke against it. The defense bill text did not include the moratorium, and House Republican leaders were left searching for another vehicle.

    What the record shows

    Whatever one thinks of preemption, the practical result so far is a stalemate. Two attempts to attach it to must-pass bills failed. The White House framework has not become law. By one account, Congress left for its August recess without moving a federal AI framework out of committee. Meanwhile, 29 states enacted AI legislation in 2026, and for the first time both Republican- and Democratic-led states passed laws adding requirements or oversight for data centers.

    The states did not wait for permission, and no one in Washington was positioned to tell them to stop or to give them something better to follow.

    The part both sides already agree on

    Here is the detail that gets lost in the argument. Even the strongest preemption proposals carve out data center infrastructure. The December executive order said legislation should not preempt state laws on data center infrastructure, and the March framework would leave state zoning for AI infrastructure in place. In other words, the people who favor the broadest national standard agree that decisions about where data centers go, how they are powered and who pays remain local and state decisions.

    That has a consequence. Whatever Congress decides about model rules, child safety or algorithmic discrimination, the data center decisions that voters care about most, and that voted on November 3, will be made by city councils, county boards, state utility commissions and legislatures. Those officials are making multibillion-dollar decisions with no technology counterpart whose job it is to see the whole picture.

    Where the owner is missing under each outcome

    • If broad preemption passes, a federal standard replaces state rules. Who enforces it, who updates it as the technology changes, and who do residents call when it fails? Without an accountable federal office, critics of preemption are right that residents lose remedies.
    • If preemption fails, the patchwork grows. Companies face rules that differ by state, and states and counties negotiate against the same few buyers with little shared information. Without a coordinating office, supporters of a national standard are right that the burden falls hardest on smaller firms and communities.
    • If a narrow hybrid passes, federal and state authority meet at a boundary that will be contested. Someone has to be accountable for where that boundary sits and for what falls through it.

    In every case, the missing piece is the same: an office that answers to voters for how the system works as a whole.

    Three tests for any national AI standard

    We take no position on how broad preemption should be. We do suggest three tests for any proposal, from any party:

    1. Is the federal protection enforceable? If a national standard replaces state rules, it should carry real enforcement and clear remedies, not just guidance.
    2. Is there a named, accountable official? Someone should be answerable to voters, and to Congress, for how the standard is administered and updated.
    3. Does it keep data center decisions local and public? Siting, rates and disclosure of public deals should stay with local and state governments, with transparency rules attached.

    And a procedural test: was it debated on its own, with hearings and a public text, instead of inside a must-pass bill?

    The case against our case

    • Accountability can be built into existing agencies. Some will say a regulator or a White House coordinator could play this role without a new elected office. That is a reasonable design, though we think voters should be able to hold someone to account directly.
    • Local decisions are the problem. Some supporters of preemption believe local control over data centers is what slows the buildout, and would prefer more federal permitting authority. The administration has proposed streamlining federal permitting for AI data centers, and reasonable people can weigh that against local consent.
    • It adds a layer. Another layer of officials could slow decisions. We would answer that the status quo already has many layers and no owner, but we welcome the debate.

    The question underneath

    The preemption fight will continue, and we hope it is resolved by open debate and not by rider. But the question underneath it will not go away: when the technology goes wrong, or when it goes right and the gains are not shared, who is responsible? We think the answer should be someone voters can elect, at every level of government. Find our proposal at department.technology/.

  • A Briefing for the New Congress: What the Last Two Years Got Wrong, and What to Do Differently

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    To the newly elected: you are about to inherit the most consequential technology decisions in a generation, and the last Congress left you a map of what not to do.

    This is not a partisan scorecard. The record we describe below includes members of both parties acting in good faith and members of both parties falling short. Newly elected members of Congress are sworn in this January, and we think you are better served by an honest account of what happened than by a flattering one. We start with what worked.

    What the last Congress got right

    It is easy to say Congress did nothing on data centers. That is not quite true. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Ratepayer Protection Act 52 to 0, a bill from Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Kathy Castor. In September, the full House passed it 417 to 3 under a procedure that required a two-thirds majority. The bill would require state utility regulators to consider standards that make large data center customers pay the full cost of the grid upgrades built to serve them. In a polarized era, that is a real accomplishment, and it shows what is possible when members start from a problem their constituents can feel: the electric bill.

    Then came the mistakes.

    Mistake 1: Trying to pass the big thing through the back door

    For two years, advocates of a national AI framework tried to move federal preemption of state AI laws by attaching it to must-pass bills. Those efforts, including the defense authorization bill and the 2025 budget reconciliation law, were unsuccessful. Senators rejected a broad preemption proposal 99 to 1. In March 2026, the White House sent Congress a national policy framework that again called for preempting burdensome state laws while carving out areas such as child safety and state zoning for AI infrastructure. By one account, Congress left for its August recess without moving a federal AI framework out of committee.

    The lesson is not that preemption is right or wrong. Reasonable people disagree, and we lay out both sides below. The lesson is that a question this large cannot be settled by rider. It needs its own hearings, its own text and its own public debate.

    Mistake 2: Letting the one agreement become a campaign prop

    The Ratepayer Protection Act did not stall because no one wanted it. It stalled because of how it arrived. On September 30, five weeks before Election Day, the Senate voted 57 to 43 on a procedural motion that needed 60 votes. Only four Democrats voted yes.

    The two sides told different stories, and each has a serious argument:

    • Republican supporters said the bill had passed the House almost unanimously, with Democratic votes and Democratic cosponsors, and accused Senate Democrats of refusing to take yes for an answer for political reasons.
    • Senate Democrats said the bill’s core protection is optional, since states need only consider standards, and offered their own GRID Savings Act to make large customers actually pay for grid upgrades. Senator Schumer called the Republican bill “optional” and toothless.

    We take no side on optional versus mandatory. We do note that Reuters reported Senate Republicans aimed to improve their midterm prospects with the vote, and that the bill arrived at the end of the session, after the Senate had not moved on data centers for months. A measure introduced in July and brought to a test vote in the last weeks before an election will be judged as a campaign move whatever its merits. The practical lesson for new members: if you want a data center bill to become law, negotiate the mandatory-versus-optional question in the spring, not the fall.

    Mistake 3: Solving one slice of a three-part problem

    Even if the Ratepayer Protection Act had passed, it would have addressed one of three risks we described in our earlier piece, “The Data Center Casino.” It deals with who pays for grid upgrades. It does not address how fast we can build power to compete with China, the financial exposure if the AI investment boom turns, or what happens to federal and state revenue if AI displaces high-paid white-collar work. Congress legislated the slice that polls well. No committee is responsible for the whole.

    Mistake 4: Leaving a vacuum for states and for secret local deals

    When Congress does not act, others do. In 2026, 29 states enacted AI legislation, and for the first time both Republican- and Democratic-led states passed laws adding requirements or oversight for data centers. That is encouraging, and it is also a patchwork. Meanwhile, at the local level, many deals are still negotiated under non-disclosure agreements. As we noted in our open letter, 25 of 31 Virginia local governments involved in data center development had signed NDAs. Residents learn about the largest infrastructure project in their county after the decision is made.

    Mistake 5: Nobody owns it

    This is the mistake underneath the others. AI, data centers, the power grid, student data, surveillance and the workforce are governed by a patchwork of committees and agencies. Each handles a slice, and no one is accountable to voters for how the slices fit together. We raised this directly. In February 2025 we submitted a proposal to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for a national AI action plan, and in July 2025 we published a response to the plan that followed. We have not had a substantive engagement with either. We mention it not as a complaint, since a good idea should not depend on one administration, but because it illustrates the structural problem: there was no office whose job it was to say yes or no.

    What new members can do in the first 100 days

    1. Hold hearings on the whole picture. Grid capacity, public cost, competitiveness and fiscal impact together, with the same witnesses in the same room.
    2. Settle optional versus mandatory early. Bring Republicans and Democrats who both voted for ratepayer protection into one room and write the version that can reach 60 votes.
    3. Keep big structural questions out of must-pass bills. Preemption, if it happens, should be debated on its own.
    4. Open the deals. Require public disclosure of data center agreements that involve public land, public utilities or public incentives.
    5. Create a single point of accountability. At minimum, a standing joint committee with jurisdiction over the whole question. Ideally, an elected technology leader at every level of government, including a Secretary of Technology at the federal level, whose job is to answer to voters for the combination.

    The case against our case

    A fair briefing includes the strongest objections.

    • Preemption advocates argue a patchwork of state laws slows innovation and that national competitiveness requires one national standard, and they note that the longer Congress waits, the harder preemption becomes as states pass more laws (Broadband Breakfast). Opponents respond that preemption without enforceable federal protections would leave residents with fewer remedies.
    • Optional standards may be the right design. Supporters of the Ratepayer Protection Act argue that utility regulation has long been a state responsibility and that a federal mandate would overreach. Critics respond that voluntary pledges have not been enough.
    • Congress already has committees for this. Some will say the problem is political will, not structure, and that a new office adds a layer. Our view is that structure shapes will: when every committee owns a slice, no one is blamed for the whole. But we welcome the argument.

    The first step

    The new Congress does not need to solve everything in January. It needs to stop treating the central question, who is accountable for the technology buildout, as someone else’s job. Start the conversation about a Department of Technology and elected technology leaders at every level. We will help, and we will be honest with you when we think you are wrong. Find our proposal at department.technology/.