AWS warns 100 proposed data center bans could hurt America for generations ESchwartzwrites@gmail.com (Eric Hal Schwartz) | usagoldmines.com

Amazon Web Services CEO Matt Garman is warning the more than 100 American communities considering moratoriums on new data centers that stopping their construction now could leave the United States paying for the decision for decades.

“In fact, this build out is so important geopolitically that there are widespread reports of various countries intentionally seeding misinformation in the U.S. about data centers to trick us into slowing down,” he wrote in a long statement defending the AI infrastructure boom. “If these measures are enacted, the U.S. could be writing its own losing ticket to this race, and the consequences would last generations. As a country, we can’t afford to find ourselves in that position.”

Garman argues that data centers have become as strategically important as highways once were. He believes AI leadership is now an economic and national security contest, and countries that build the necessary computing infrastructure fastest will enjoy the benefits for years to come.

It is a dramatic warning, although the scale of what is being built is dramatic enough to match it. A new Brookings report estimates that investment in American data centers and related AI infrastructure could total $10.3 trillion between 2025 and 2032. That works out to an average of 3.63% of U.S. GDP each year and would make the current AI buildout larger relative to the economy than America’s canal, railroad, electrification, highway, and telecommunications industries.

Building AI everywhere

However, the comparison to the interstate highways leaves out the critical difference of who paid for them. The highways were funded by taxpayers, while Garman stresses that private companies are paying for the AI infrastructure boom. That certainly makes a $10.3 trillion construction spree easier to sell politically, although it does not mean the public is insulated from its consequences, like how much electricity and other resources the data centers consume.

Amazon argues that concerns about data centers raising bills, draining water supplies, or creating pollution are often exaggerated or wrong. Garman wrote that AWS works with utilities and regulators to ensure the prices its data centers pay cover the energy and infrastructure they require. Amazon also says its facilities are increasingly water efficient and that it is moving toward lower-emission backup generators.

More significantly, Amazon appears to recognize that simply telling communities to trust the industry is becoming a losing strategy. The company says it no longer uses nondisclosure agreements with government agencies for data center projects and will publish annual information about energy and water use.

“There are clearly areas in which the technology and energy industries can be doing better (along with their government partners) but just like in the past when the country has banded together to accomplish something that’s critical for our national security and economic prosperity — we should approach this as a long-term mission that the private and public sectors pursue together,” Garman wrote.

The backlash grows

Amazon is certainly putting some money behind the charm offensive. Its new Built Together program will apparently add more than $1 billion over five years to community investments around its U.S. data centers. The company says the money will support free community college programs, workforce training and energy-efficiency improvements for schools, public buildings and homes, with a goal of helping prepare as many as 100,000 workers annually by the end of 2028.

But these commitments are arriving just as opposition is becoming difficult to dismiss as a handful of angry neighbors.

California offers perhaps the clearest example of the shift, as reported in CalMatters. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed seven data center bills that will, among other things, work to stop electricity customers from having to subsidize data center infrastructure and set environmental reviews for the facilities.

Even Texas’ famously permissive regulations are changing a little bit to increase supervision of data centers, albeit with some enormous loopholes.

Garman argues that misinformation and “outright lies” are driving resistance, but Amazon’s promises suggest at least some of the backlash is a response to problems worth addressing.

The $10.3 trillion question

The AI industry is effectively making one of the largest infrastructure bets in American history on the assumption that demand and revenue will justify the bill.

That makes the political sales pitch particularly important as AI companies need communities to accept years of construction and enormous new demands on electricity infrastructure before anyone knows exactly how transformative or profitable the technology will be.

Not every AI developer is opting for reassurance either. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Politico that “we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency.”

He was talking primarily about AI safety and misuse rather than data centers, and that eliminating every possible hack or scam would require restrictions that would deprive people of AI’s Still, he may as well have been talking about building the physical data centers, as it amounts to a similar request that Americans accept disruption now because of benefits from AI to come.

Garman and Altman are both making arguments that require an awful lot of confidence that AI’s destination justifies a turbulent journey. Communities appear less willing to sign that blank check. Amazon’s latest promises suggest it understands that resistance cannot simply be bulldozed away.

Garman may ultimately be right that data centers will become infrastructure as consequential as the Interstate Highway System, but nobody wants to live next to the highway. That fact led to rules about where and what kind of housing can be built along highways.

How much control the people living beside AI infrastructure should have and what protections they deserve remains an open question.