Opposition to local AI data centers is bipartisan, according to a March 2026 Gallup poll, which found that majorities of Democrats (75 percent) and Republicans (63 percent) would oppose construction of an AI data center where they live. Overall, 71 percent of those surveyed expressed opposition to data center construction, a significantly greater figure than the 53 percent who said they would oppose a nuclear power plant being built near them.
But that opposition is not necessarily as straightforward as it seems, at least according to a July 2026 report produced by Alethea, a digital risk management company. Foreign state actors—including Russia, China, and Iran—are “amplifying the homegrown data center revolt” as “a wedge against trust in U.S. infrastructure, companies, and government,” Alethea’s report warned.
The report documented state media messaging (e.g., American elites are hoarding water and power to the detriment of ordinary citizens) and distinguished between “organic” and “coordinated” or “amplified” opposition, warning that a coordinated campaign is “a target list not just a talking point.” Furthermore, Alethea advised, “Some domestic political actors are beginning to adopt foreign-originated aesthetics and tactics in their own anti-data center messaging.”
This framing raises serious questions about whether legitimate (“organic”) domestic opposition to AI data centers may risk being discredited and dismissed as the product of foreign influence campaigns.
The New York Times’s coverage
“Foreign Actors Aim to Exploit Divide on A.I.” proclaimed the top headline of the July 10, 2026, print edition of the New York Times. Drawing heavily on Alethea’s report, the article described “a push by foreign adversaries to seize on what polls have shown is deep ambivalence—verging at times on hostility—about the spread of the data centers needed to power A.I. in the United States and elsewhere.” Between January and June, Alethea documented around 700 mentions of data centers by Chinese, Russian, and Iranian state media, some of which targeted American audiences, the Times reported.
Even as the New York Times article noted that foreign influence campaigns’ “impact on public opinion remains to be seen,” most of the directly quoted sources saw imminent threats.
Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, warned acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about efforts by “foreign adversaries to exploit these fears and undermine our technological development,” the Times reported.
In a broadcast interview, the Times noted, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox Business that “some of this propaganda is being effective” in building domestic opposition to data centers.
And the Times article quoted Sam Lyman, a researcher at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, who acknowledged that “there is an organic opposition to data centers” and “an inorganic element that runs parallel to this specific opposition movement.”
“Foreign actors aren’t manufacturing American debates over the future of A.I., they are exploiting them,” Jessica Brandt, who served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence during the Biden administration, told the Times.
While the New York Times attempted to deftly balance its coverage (“impact … remains to be seen”) and Alethea offered its services to help corporate and government leaders avoid “misreading which parts of the fight are organic, which are amplified,” the framing each used ironically provides opportunities for exploitation by government and corporate officials interested in promoting AI. Two potential consequences of highlighting foreign influence campaigns were left out of frame by Alethea’s report and the establishment press coverage of it.
Outside the frame
Although Alethea’s study focused on sources of domestic opposition specifically to data centers, we should be alert for AI boosters, in either government or corporate positions, who may employ the logical fallacy of hasty generalization: The Alethea study provided no evidence that domestic criticism of AI-powered systems—including how they can perpetuate inequalities, mask injustices, and shift power—has been seeded or amplified by foreign influence campaigns. But the Alethea report, or findings like it, could be willfully misconstrued to discredit criticism of AI more generally.
We’ve seen this kind of moral panic before. Recall, for example, the hotly contested claim that Russian propaganda influenced the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. In the aftermath of that election, numerous reports documented how sensationalized coverage of “Russiagate” functioned to discredit legitimate domestic activism.
If that comparison seems like a stretch, note carefully that OpenAI, whose ChatGPT bot launched most Americans, willing or not, into the era of generative artificial intelligence, actively warns of foreign influences operations—some of which employ the company’s own products—“to latch onto existing local issues and sincerely held beliefs, using them to build credibility, amplify divisions or exacerbate public distrust.”
Chilling effects
Alethea’s framing of “organic” versus “coordinated” opposition could easily be extended to discredit anyone who criticizes AI-powered systems. This framing threatens to throttle meaningful public dialogue about the future of artificial intelligence, including how AI systems could be developed, implemented, and regulated for the public good, rather than individual gain. Instead, critics with valid concerns may be pressured to self-censor for fear of being labeled foreign agents or their pawns. And those who speak out nonetheless may be rebuked with charges that their criticism serves foreign interests.
The establishment press could play a helpful role in forestalling the chilling effects of hasty generalizations simply by looking beyond industry spokespersons and researchers, and their allies, as the primary sources of information and perspective about newly developed AI systems. Unfortunately, nearly four years after Princeton computer scientists Sayash Kapoor and Arvind Narayanan warned against “uncritically platforming those with self-interest,” this remains a pitfall in establishment reporting on AI.
Until corporate news outlets expand their definitions of who and what count as “newsworthy,” we must remain alert for factually correct but nevertheless misleading coverage of AI, which touts unjustified claims about progress, while portraying experts who point out limitations as reactionary “skeptics”—or, worse, the dupes of foreign agents.
- First published at Project Censored.