Welcome back to Power Play, WIRED’s weekly column about the strangest and most surprising political battles of this midterm season. I’m Molly Taft, and if you’ve been paying attention to the news at all, you already know that data centers have gone from a boring backroom infrastructure topic to one of the most explosive issues in American politics. From surveillance and DOGE to Big Tech money and religious extremism, this election cycle has been absolutely wild—but the sudden, furious backlash against data centers might be the most unexpected twist of all. The public has turned on them with astonishing speed since the beginning of the year, and the opposition isn’t coming from just one party. It’s bipartisan, it’s angry, and it’s already shaping races across the country. Republicans are breaking with President Donald Trump to slam the industry, while Democrats are using it to hammer their opponents as corporate sellouts. Candidates on both sides are trying to prove they are the most anti–data center person in the race. I’ve spotted at least five candidates who have been slapped with the derogatory “Data Center [Name]” nickname by their opponents—including two different guys named Derek/Derrick, which is somehow not a coincidence but a tiny window into the chaos of this cycle. The issue may not be the top concern for every voter, but polling suggests that pocketbook issues are dominating people’s minds, and data centers are directly tied to rising energy bills, water shortages, and environmental destruction. That makes them potent enough to swing tight races—and ultimately, to tip the balance of power in Congress. Here’s a closer look at the races WIRED is watching as we approach November 3.
Let’s start with the Senate, because the most dramatic data center battle of the cycle is playing out in Ohio. The National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a memo in August warning that Democrat Sherrod Brown, who is running for Senate in Ohio, was hitting his opponent, Republican Senator Jon Husted, so hard on data centers that it could tip the outcome of the entire race. The NRSC called it “a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle.” Brown has been relentless, calling Husted “the face of data centers in Ohio” and running ad after ad that blames Husted for welcoming data centers into the state and driving up energy bills for ordinary families. It’s a smart attack, because everyone understands what it’s like to open a utility bill and see it spike. Brown has managed to make a wonky infrastructure issue feel deeply personal. Senate Democrats have also taken up Brown’s cause, torpedoing a bill sponsored by Husted that was modeled after the White House’s ratepayer protection pledge. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dismissed the bill as “toothless,” making it clear that Democrats see data centers as a winning political weapon. Ohio is the top race to watch, but it’s hardly the only one. Data centers have seeped into toss-up Senate races in Michigan, Iowa, and Texas as well. In each of those states, candidates are trying to position themselves as the true defenders of everyday residents against an industry that has grown too big and too powerful. The Senate map is already difficult for Democrats, but if data centers are the sleeper issue that mobilizes voters, it could scramble all the expectations.
The House is where things get even messier. All 435 seats are up for grabs, and data centers have become flashpoints in dozens of races across the country. Among the races labeled as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report, there are numerous examples of candidates running data-center-related ads. In Michigan’s 7th district, Democrat Will Lawrence used local opposition to data centers to help win a tough primary, and now he’s facing Republican Tom Barrett in the general election. Lawrence has aired several ads that both attack Barrett and advertise his own promise to “stand up to corporate power.” It’s a classic populist pitch, and it’s working because data centers are seen as the ultimate symbol of corporate power—massive, faceless, and greedy. In Pennsylvania’s 8th district, Republican incumbent Rob Bresnahan is running ads promising to be tough on the industry, which is interesting because he holds data-center-related stocks and previously took a much friendlier stance. His Democratic challenger, Paige Cognetti, has also run ads attacking the industry. So both candidates are trying to out-anti-data-center each other, even though one of them literally profits from it. In Ohio’s 9th district, Democratic incumbent Marcy Kaptur has run ads railing against what she says is her opponent Derek Merrin’s history of giving tax breaks to data centers. The ads call him “Data Center Derek.” Merrin claims Kaptur is misrepresenting his vote on a broader bill, but the nickname has stuck. In Wisconsin’s 3rd district, Democrat Rebecca Cooke has aired attack ads against incumbent Derrick van Orden, dubbing him “DC Derrick” because of his history of taking contributions from data center developers. Van Orden has shot back by highlighting Cooke’s ties to the tech industry, claiming she is “responsible for covering up pristine Wisconsin farmland” with data centers. And in New York’s 17th district, Republican incumbent Mike Lawler has aired an ad slamming Democratic opponent Cait Conley for past statements that the Hudson Valley “needs” data centers. These races are all different, but they share a common thread: no one wants to be seen as friendly to the data center industry, even if they used to be.
The governor races are following the same pattern, with at least 20 candidates in the 36 gubernatorial races promising to enact some kind of data center moratorium if elected, according to research from Multistate. That’s an extraordinary number. A moratorium is a big deal—it means hitting pause on new construction, which can have massive economic consequences. But voters are demanding it, and politicians are listening. The only true hyperscale moratorium in place in the US right now was signed in July by New York governor Kathy Hochul, who holds a comfortable lead ahead of her challenger Bruce Blakeman. Blakeman supports data center development, so Hochul can use the issue to appeal to voters who are worried about their energy bills and the environment. It’s a safe bet for her, but it’s also a sign of how much the politics have shifted. Even in races where candidates don’t have much daylight between them on the issue, they’re still trying to gain the upper hand. In Wisconsin’s tight gubernatorial race, Republican Tom Tiffany has attacked Democrat David Crowley with ads calling him “Data Center David.” The funny thing is, both candidates say they support restrictions on the industry. So Tiffany is essentially attacking Crowley for not being anti-data-center enough, even though they agree on the basics. That’s how potent this issue has become: it’s not enough to be vaguely critical of data centers anymore. You have to prove it, and you have to convince voters that your opponent is secretly in bed with the tech giants. The result is a strange political landscape where former supporters of data centers are doing dramatic U-turns, and candidates are desperately trying to scrub their records clean.
What’s really striking about all of this is how human and relatable the backlash has become. Data centers are not an abstract policy issue; they are giant concrete buildings that show up in your neighborhood, use enormous amounts of electricity and water, and create very few jobs. People see their energy bills going up, they see farmland disappearing, they hear the constant hum of servers, and they feel powerless. That’s a recipe for political anger. It’s also why the issue cuts across party lines. A Republican voter in rural Wisconsin and a Democratic voter in suburban New York might disagree on almost everything, but they can both agree that they don’t want a data center next door. This has created some strange political alliances. Republicans are breaking from Trump, who has generally been friendly to the tech industry and data center development. Democrats are embracing rhetoric that sounds almost anti-capitalist. And candidates are being forced to take positions that might have seemed unthinkable a few years ago. The hypocrisy is also hard to ignore. There are incumbents who happily welcomed data centers to their districts, took campaign contributions from developers, and praised the economic benefits—and now they’re running ads promising to crack down on the industry. Their opponents are gleefully pointing out the flip-flops. The voters, meanwhile, are paying attention. They’re the ones who have to live with the consequences, and they’re the ones who will decide whether data centers become a permanent political liability or just a temporary flashpoint. The fact that so many races are being defined by this issue suggests that it’s not going away anytime soon.
As we head into the final days before November 3, the data center issue is one of the most unpredictable wildcards in the entire election. It could tip a handful of races in the House and Senate, and it could ultimately determine which party controls Congress. The candidates who can best channel the anger and frustration of ordinary voters—while offering credible solutions—are likely to come out on top. But it’s not an easy issue to solve. Data centers are a symptom of our digital age, and the demand for them is only going to grow. The question is whether we can build them in a way that is fair to local communities, protects the environment, and keeps energy costs reasonable. That’s a complicated policy challenge, and politicians are rarely good at nuance. But the fact that they’re being forced to talk about it is a sign that voters are demanding accountability. If you’ve got a question or thought about data centers and the midterms, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to shoot me an email at [email protected] or reach me securely on Signal at mollytaft.76. In the meantime, I’ll be watching these races closely, because the data center backlash might just be the story that defines this election—and the future of American politics.
