Trump Shrugs Off A.I. and Data Center Concerns as Voters Grow Anxious

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has started to rattle voters around the country, raising fears that they could be thrust from their jobs if the technology succeeds, or lose their retirement savings if the industry falters.

But for all of the emerging doubt and political blowback, there has been no sign of concern at the White House, where President Trump has generally maintained a much more sanguine view about the coming digital revolution.

To the administration, A.I. can do little wrong.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump and his top aides have dismissed the suggestion that widespread automation could carry real negative consequences for families, businesses and the broader U.S. economy. Even as the electorate grows uneasy about the technology — and the data centers that power it — the president has only hardened in his view that A.I. will supercharge everything from medical research to military action.

The political chasm between the president and the public has been most evident surrounding the red-hot issue of data centers, which Mr. Trump has defended as “Money Machines” even as opposition widens nationally over the facilities.

A small group of demonstrators interrupted one of Mr. Trump’s rallies in Michigan last month to demand an end to data center construction. That incident came on the heels of similar protests around the country, in a campaign organized by conservatives who otherwise support Mr. Trump’s politics.

“I think they are bullish about this technology,” said Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the administration’s approach.

Mr. Strain said he generally agreed with much of the president’s “general approach” in seeking to foster A.I., and that he believed the technology would benefit the economy and national security. But, he acknowledged, the White House seemed to be less interested in preparing for the possible downsides.

“It’s a potential vulnerability for the economy,” he said, “and one worth tracking and seeing how it develops.”

Mr. Trump may yet prove correct in his glowing ***essment about A.I. But his support has contrasted starkly with the more measured views from economists and policymakers across the political spectrum. Even among those who see A.I. as the most significant technological leap in human history, there is a sense that a disruption of this magnitude rarely occurs without consequence — and that Washington needs to be more prepared for every scenario.

There is one view that A.I. can make workers significantly more productive and that the resulting gains could add significantly to global growth. Chasing that vision and the immense wealth that may accompany it, the largest technology companies, known as the “hyperscalers,” could spend as much as $5 trillion on A.I. infrastructure in the coming years, according to JP Morgan. That could require companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to generate significantly more revenue than they do now.

That has delighted Mr. Trump, who has sought in his second term to increase construction and manufacturing. But there is also great doubt among many experts that such an evolution is going to be frictionless.

At the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, economists including Erik Brynjolfsson, a widely cited expert on technology, have started trying to measure those early effects. In its latest update, published in July, the think tank reported a significant uptick in spending on A.I. infrastructure — but, for now, “no decisive evidence” of a grand transformation to the labor force and entire industries.

Mr. Brynjolfsson said that the capabilities of A.I. would improve rapidly in the coming years, which would have “profound implications on our economy, both in good ways but also potentially with some real risks.” The very concern prompted Mr. Brynjolfsson to help organize about 200 economists and A.I. experts earlier this year to issue a joint statement calling on government to “build the incentives, guardrails and institutions needed to steer A.I. in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.”

Recognizing some of the risks, the White House last week readied a long-awaited plan to monitor some A.I. models to ensure that they do not create security vulnerabilities. Developed in coordination with companies including Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, it represented a departure from administration’s hands-off approach toward the new technology.

Otherwise, though, the White House has tried to position itself primarily as a cheerleader for A.I.

“The narrative for so long coming from government, prior to President Trump, has been so fixated on the negative impacts of this technology. Like of course people are skeptical,” Michael Kratsios, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said on a podcast hosted by Peter H. Diamandis, a technologist, which was published last week.

During the interview, Mr. Kratsios recalled attending an A.I. safety summit in the United Kingdom two years ago, which he said had focused on “what could go wrong.” That, he added, helped to crystallize the current problem facing the industry — and the administration’s rationale in sharing a more “positive” take about A.I. with the public.

“The only thing they’re hearing from politicians and from people in industry is that, oh, there’s going to be a bunch of job losses, and everything is dangerous,” he said, adding, “I think those are the things that get people worked up, and it shouldn’t surprise us that the P.R. is bad.”

The Trump administration has struck its most bullish note on data centers, the growth of which has served as a flashpoint in elections around the country.

Many cities and states have started to question the economic value of the facilities, which may support few long-term jobs once construction concludes, and the power, water and other resources they demand. The concern has prompted some policymakers to halt data center construction, including in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, enacted the first statewide moratorium in July.

In response, Mr. Trump lashed out on social media. Demanding a reversal to the policy, the president said the facilities would generate taxes and jobs that amounted to “LIQUID GOLD,” adding that data centers “are tremendous WINS for the States and Communities that are lucky enough to get them.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The two companies have denied the suit’s claims.

In an attempt to tamp down voters’ mounting concerns, Mr. Trump did broker an agreement earlier this year with technology companies that included those companies paying for needed electricity upgrades. But the pact, which is voluntary, came as the president appeared to doubt openly whether there was even an energy cost problem to begin with.

“They need some P.R. help,” he said at a March event, referring to the public relations image of data centers. “Because people think that if a data center goes in there, electricity prices are going to go up. And that’s not happening. It’s not going to happen.”

Lawmakers in 15 states nonetheless have considered such bans targeting data centers over the past year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which last updated its count in July. Last week, Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, a Democrat, also signed a new directive meant to protect residents from electricity price hikes from data centers, while Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, required new projects to submit to an energy audit.

Mr. Trump still appeared to criticize some of the moves. Singling out Texas, he told Punchbowl News in an interview published Friday that its actions were a “mistake,” adding of data centers: “It could be bigger than oil.”

The full-throated endorsement of data centers has increasingly put the president on the opposite side of his fellow conservatives, who have long been skeptical of the nation’s largest technology companies.

Among the most vocal is Humans First, an advocacy group led by Amy Kremer, a former Tea Party leader who helped to organize the Stop the Steal rally on Facebook after the 2020 presidential election. Ms. Kremer said she used A.I. every day and was not wholly opposed to it. But, she said, policymakers at all levels of government had failed to chart the future of the technology in a way that accounted for the public’s anxieties.

“People are very, very upset,” she said. “They feel like there’s a disconnect. They feel like no one is speaking for them.”

Ms. Kremer said her group helped to organize a day of protests against data centers in 42 states last month. She fretted that the nation’s largest technology companies had “bought their way” into Mr. Trump’s inner circle and had shaped some of his approach to the issue.

“I think the people around him definitely know of the backlash,” she said, “and I just hope that he understands what people are thinking and feeling.”

But the pushback has hardly appeared to rattle the public optimism of the administration. Speaking weeks after the conservatives’ protest, Kevin H***ett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, still sought to downplay some of the national trepidation around A.I. and data centers.

“I don’t think anyone should be worried that a data center is going to be plopped on top of them,” he told Fox Business in late July, adding that the deals between tech companies and local communities around the facilities have been negotiated “pretty generously.”

“If you take a sleepy town that hasn’t really seen much in the last 20, 30 years, and put a data center there,” Mr. H***ett later added, “then there are going to be a whole bunch of happy residents in that town.”