US voters have rejected data centres and AI. What happens now?

American democracy seemed to burst back into life last week. After years of anti-science populism and unabashed greed, climate change seems likely to return to the political agenda. The outcome of the midterm elections should have a positive impact on US climate and energy policy, though it remains to be seen how much damage can be reversed.

During the first two years of Donald Trump’s second term, the US president and climate deniers in his administration launched an onslaught on environmental protections and climate mitigation. He cancelled Biden-era climate policies that promoted renewable energy and decarbonisation by opening up new areas of federal land for oil and gas extraction, and by partnering or supporting the fossil fuel industry in multiple ways – including for private gain.

In just two years, the Trump administration systematically dismantled or weakened key scientific institutions and even removed climate science information and data sets from government websites.

A 2025 report by two non-profit organisations into links between the US government and fossil fuel companies found 43 fossil fuel industry insiders among nominees and appointees to agencies charged with enforcing energy and environmental policy. Some of these deals are now likely to be investigated by a Democrat-controlled Congress.

There was a time when Big Oil and Big Tech pursued separate strategies, with some companies in the tech sector aiming for climate goals – like Microsoft even setting itself a target of becoming carbon negative by 2030.

The green ambitions of the sector have now been largely abandoned. All of the main technology companies are investing heavily in AI infrastructure, which in turn is driving up energy demand and emissions. As the International Energy Agency points out in its AI report, “there is no AI without energy”. And energy is a material thing: it requires electrons, wires, power sources and land. It can’t be hidden in the “cloud” or in the pages of sustainability reports. Data centres are literally the ground zero of digitalisation and AI. Unless Elon Musk figures out how to power them from space, they have to be built on the Earth, somewhere – whether it’s Ohio, Texas, Kilmeaden, Naas or Ennis.

But their physical presence means they need a social licence, at least in democratic countries. The unholy alliance between the tech sector and Trump’s Republican Party allowed tech companies to take advantage of his deregulatory instincts and distrust of China. The heads of all the world’s biggest tech firms, representing an estimated combined net worth of $1.2 trillion, were celebrated guests at Trump’s inauguration.

The leading companies made staggering political donations to Republican candidates in advance of the midterms, with Musk alone contributing $446 million to Republicans, $200 million of which was to back just one candidate (who lost).

Phasing out fossil fuels is a much more urgent priority than expanding energy-guzzling technology of any kind

The brazen power of these companies, and the belief that money can buy anything including votes, was plain to see over the last few months. We may have stringent rules over political donations in Ireland, but we should not assume that our political system is immune to this pressure and influence. This industry and its billionaire bosses are not really bothered by democratic norms.

Some tech bosses eschew democracy altogether, toying with the concept of a “networked state” popularised by Silicon Valley libertarians and techno-elites. Arguing that digitalisation and AI mean the traditional democratic state is no longer fit for purpose, theirs is a vision of post-national governance grounded in inequality, exclusion, and market sovereignty. And that’s before you add in existential risk, addictive chatbots, bioweapons and cyber attacks.

[ Silicon Valley’s broligarchy bet everything on Trump. What will they do now?Opens in new window ]

Thankfully, the US electorate gave this apocalyptic vision a resounding “you’re fired!” last week. Measures to restrict data centres were passed by voters in all but one ballot during the midterms, according to a tracking website. The measures included outright prohibitions, temporary moratoriums, limitations on energy use, mandating voter approval before construction and advisory measures urging local officials to restrict data centres. Put alongside the Democratic victories, these results have sent markets for AI stocks into turmoil and are likely to slow the pace of AI over the coming years.

[ Former Musk aide urges Ireland to modify its approach to data centresOpens in new window ]

Slowing down AI and pausing all new data centre construction where they cannot be fully powered 24/7 with renewable electricity makes sense. Unbelievably, there is no globally agreed architecture in place for regulating AI. Nor is there a clear framework for holding tech firms accountable when their products cause irreversible harm or climate damage, or when they fail to adhere to privacy laws. Ensuring that such a framework is in place, and that it is aligned with the Paris Agreement and the principle of safety and non-harming, seems like an obvious first step.

Phasing out fossil fuels is a much more urgent priority than expanding energy-guzzling technology of any kind. All technology-related energy demand growth should respect carbon budgets and be powered by additional renewable energy capacity. Such a simplistic ecological principle might not sit well with the techno-elites, and it would challenge many other sectors too. But as the world lurches towards dangerous global temperature increases, we cannot afford not to.