6th November 2026
The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence has been presented as one of the biggest economic opportunities of the coming decade. Governments want to attract technology companies, investors are committing billions of pounds and countries are competing to become centres of the new AI industry.
But a political backlash is developing in the United States, and the results of the November 2026 midterm elections suggest that the issue could become increasingly difficult for technology companies to ignore.
The argument is not simply about whether artificial intelligence is good or bad. It is increasingly about the enormous infrastructure needed to support it, who pays for that infrastructure and whether local communities receive a fair share of the benefits.
For Britain, which is actively encouraging data centre investment, the American experience could prove particularly important.
America's voters send a warning to the technology industry
The November midterm elections brought a significant change in the political debate surrounding data centres.
Democratic candidates campaigning for tighter controls achieved victories in several important states, including Texas, Ohio and Georgia. These are not minor locations for the industry. They are among the areas attracting substantial investment in new computing infrastructure.
In Texas, newly elected Governor Gina Hinojosa campaigned for a moratorium on new data centre development until stronger protections could be introduced. In Ohio, Governor-elect Amy Acton supported a conditional approach, requiring developers to meet stricter standards before projects could proceed.
Local voters also made their feelings known. According to Associated Press reporting, 44 of 45 completed municipal referendums on data centre restrictions produced votes in favour of restrictions.
The concerns cross traditional political boundaries. Farmers worry about water supplies and agricultural land, householders are concerned about electricity bills, and environmental campaigners question the energy requirements of the industry.
The elections do not amount to a national rejection of artificial intelligence. They do, however, demonstrate that the physical infrastructure supporting AI has become a political issue.
Why are data centres becoming unpopular?
A modern data centre is effectively a huge warehouse containing thousands of computer servers. These facilities process and store information, support cloud computing and provide the computing power needed for artificial intelligence.
Their requirements can be substantial.
Electricity is needed to operate the servers and cooling systems, while water may be required for certain cooling technologies. Large developments can occupy considerable areas of land and require new substations, transmission lines and other infrastructure.
The concern for ordinary electricity consumers is that rapidly increasing demand could put pressure on electricity supplies and prices.
Developers argue that data centres bring investment, construction employment, business rates and opportunities for supporting industries. There is also a wider economic argument that countries need their own computing infrastructure to remain competitive.
However, the number of permanent jobs created by an individual facility can be relatively modest compared with the scale of the investment.
This raises an important question: are communities being asked to provide land, water and electricity infrastructure for developments whose principal financial benefits flow to large international technology companies?
How long could American restrictions take?
The immediate consequences are likely to be felt at state and local level rather than through a single national law.
Governors and state legislatures can introduce planning restrictions, review tax concessions and establish requirements for developers to demonstrate that their projects will not increase costs for ordinary consumers.
Some local authorities have already introduced temporary moratoriums or restrictions.
However, changing the rules across the whole United States is a different matter. President Trump remains a supporter of the AI industry and has argued that data centres bring investment and employment. Federal restrictions would therefore face political opposition.
The more immediate prospect is a patchwork of different rules across individual states.
That could make investment decisions more complicated. Companies may increasingly favour locations where electricity supplies are available, planning arrangements are predictable and local opposition is limited.
The longer-term implications could be considerable, particularly for projects that have not yet secured planning permission or electricity connections.
Could Britain benefit from American difficulties?
The British Government has been keen to attract international investment in data centres and artificial intelligence.
It has introduced AI Growth Zones, sought to accelerate planning decisions and designated data centres as critical national infrastructure.
The intention is to make Britain an attractive location for international technology companies while developing the infrastructure needed to support the country's digital economy.
If American developers encounter lengthy delays or more restrictive planning conditions, Britain could become an alternative destination for some investment.
But attracting investment is only part of the challenge.
Britain has its own electricity supply and grid connection problems. A company cannot operate a major data centre simply because it has found suitable land and obtained planning permission. It needs a dependable supply of electricity at a commercially acceptable price.
The Government's response to its electricity connections consultation, published on 28 October, recognises the scale of the problem.
It proposes aligning data centre connections after 2030 with regional infrastructure targets. The intention is to ensure that the number of projects receiving connections reflects the electricity network's capacity, as well as the availability of water and land and the needs of other electricity consumers.
The Government also supports stronger financial commitments from developers to discourage speculative projects from occupying places in the grid connection queue.
This is significant. Britain is not simply opening the door to unlimited data centre construction. It is beginning to recognise that investment needs to be matched by realistic infrastructure planning.
The gas generation problem
One of the more difficult questions concerns how data centres will obtain electricity while waiting for new grid connections.
Some developers are considering on-site generation, including gas-fired power, to provide electricity or backup supplies.
There is a practical argument for this. Technology companies require extremely reliable electricity and cannot easily tolerate interruptions.
However, there is a potential conflict with Britain's climate objectives.
If gas generation becomes a regular source of electricity for data centres rather than an emergency backup, the expansion of artificial intelligence could increase demand for fossil fuels at a time when the Government is trying to reduce dependence on them.
There is also a question about whether developers should be allowed to secure an advantage over other businesses by building their own generation facilities while other industries remain in electricity connection queues.
The Government needs to be clear about the conditions under which private generation will be permitted and how its environmental consequences will be assessed.
What about Scotland and the Highlands?
Scotland has considerable renewable energy potential and could attract data centre investment, particularly where suitable electricity infrastructure is available.
However, renewable generation does not automatically mean that electricity can be delivered to every location where a developer wants to build.
Grid capacity, transmission infrastructure, planning permission, water availability and local economic benefits all matter.
For Caithness and Sutherland, the debate deserves particular attention.
The area has significant renewable energy resources and a history of providing energy for the wider economy. There could be opportunities for data infrastructure investment, supporting businesses and skilled employment.
But simply providing land and electricity for a large development should not be regarded as an economic success in itself.
Communities should be asking how many permanent jobs will be created, whether local businesses will benefit, what contribution developers will make towards infrastructure and whether household electricity consumers will be protected from additional costs.
A development that generates substantial investment but provides relatively few lasting local opportunities needs to be assessed differently from one that creates a wider industrial and employment base.
Britain needs to learn from America
The American elections should encourage British politicians to look beyond the headline investment figures.
Artificial intelligence could bring substantial improvements in productivity, scientific research, healthcare and industrial efficiency. Britain cannot afford to ignore those opportunities.
But there is a difference between developing a successful AI industry and simply constructing large numbers of buildings to house computer equipment.
The Government's recently published Data Centre Covenant, dated 28 October, is a recognition that investment needs to meet wider expectations. It addresses energy costs, community benefits, water efficiency, national security and employment.
The challenge will be making sure that these expectations are meaningful rather than simply voluntary promises.
There is also a danger of moving too quickly. If planning decisions are accelerated without sufficient consideration of electricity supplies, environmental effects and local benefits, opposition could grow in Britain just as it has in America.
The technology industry may have assumed that the demand for AI would make communities automatically welcome new data centres. The American elections suggest otherwise.
The real test for Britain is not how many data centres it can attract, but whether the investment produces lasting economic benefits without transferring the costs to ordinary electricity consumers and local communities.
That is a question which should be asked before the next major development receives approval, not after the buildings have been constructed.