Despite being nearly 2,000 miles apart, Arizona and Pennsylvania have found common ground in an unlikely place: a bipartisan push to halt new data center development. Elected officials and activists from both parties have called for moratoriums, reflecting a populist skepticism of large-scale investment and rapid technological change that cuts across the political spectrum.
While there are legitimate concerns about water use, power demand, and community impact, these calls come amid an election season—hardly the ideal moment for a sober assessment of policy tradeoffs. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry have both tried to engage the public and stakeholders, but disinformation often drowns out those efforts.
To make their point, both chambers issued tongue-in-cheek challenges: the “No Technology Pledge” in Pennsylvania and the “Offline Pledge” in Arizona. Each invited opponents to swear off the digital services that depend on data centers—online banking, telehealth, streaming, GPS, e-commerce, and cloud storage. Not a single taker has come forward.
“We have no expectation that anyone will give up these services,” said Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber. Luke Bernstein, his Pennsylvania counterpart, echoed that sentiment. The pledges were facetious, but they underscore a serious reality: stopping the construction of digital infrastructure won't stop the demand for it. It will simply push investments, jobs, and innovation elsewhere—possibly to countries that don't share America's interests.
At a time when technological leadership is inseparable from economic and national security, voluntarily surrendering investment in digital infrastructure would be a profound mistake. The potential risks of an AI infrastructure boom are real, but so are the benefits.
Seiden and Bernstein are not arguing that data centers should be built everywhere or that communities should accept projects without asking hard questions. Residents deserve a voice, and developers should be transparent about water and energy use, noise, infrastructure needs, and economic benefits. A lack of transparency has bred suspicion; more openness could build trust.
They also don't dismiss concerns about artificial intelligence. But centering the debate on AI misses how deeply data centers are already woven into everyday life—supporting commerce, banking, healthcare, transportation, and communications. Moreover, the industry is evolving: new cooling technologies and closed-loop systems significantly reduce water demands, and regulators and utilities are working to ensure power costs aren't shifted onto other customers.
Data centers can bring enormous private capital investment and generate significant tax revenue that helps communities fund schools, police, and fire protection. Good policy requires laws that keep pace with innovation while protecting communities. That won't happen by closing the door on debate, investment, and innovation before the conversation has even begun.
“Our pledges aren't serious proposals,” Seiden and Bernstein wrote, “but neither are data center moratoria.” As data centers become a midterm wedge issue, and with political rallies for data centers already underway, the debate is far from settled. But the chambers argue that halting development is not the answer—it's a race to the bottom that would cost American jobs and innovation.
