Data centers are becoming a bipartisan political headache. Amazon’s decision to stop using nondisclosure agreements during negotiations with local governments shows the industry has noticed the problem, even if transparency is a modest place to begin.
Amazon announced it will no longer use NDAs while negotiating with local governments over data centers, following Microsoft’s lead. The announcement appeared in the middle of a longer blog post arguing that data centers benefit communities—because nothing says public trust like burying a policy change inside a sales pitch.
The industry faces resistance from residents, local officials, and politicians across party lines. About 70% of Americans oppose data center construction in their local areas, including 75% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans. That is not a niche protest movement waiting for better branding.
At least 75 data center projects worth more than $130 billion in total were delayed or cancelled during the first three months of this year, while active opposition groups grew from 396 to 833. Pennsylvania contains 174 data centers out of about 4,767 projects in the United States, placing the state near the center of a fight over land, electricity, permits, and local control.
Pennsylvania turns a showcase project into a test case
Gov. Josh Shapiro announced Project Hazelnut in November 2024. In July 2025, he announced a $20 billion investment from Amazon for data center construction in Pennsylvania, presenting the buildout as an economic opportunity for the state.
One proposed project in Hazle Township makes the conflict concrete. NorthPoint Development proposed a $165 million data center covering 1,300 acres in a township with 4,500 residents, while about 30 properties in Sugarloaf Township faced eminent domain threats. The Alliance to Stop the Line formed in response, and Annie Vinatieri described the unusual political alignment around the opposition: “We can maybe disagree on the political finer points of things, but we can find this very real camaraderie in the midst of everything.”
Shapiro responded to public pushback in August by signing an executive order that eliminated fast-track permits and gave local agencies power to approve data center projects. He also framed the issue as a failure of infrastructure and communication, saying, “What I was finding after listening to the neighbors about their concerns, and then talking with some of these developers, is those developers who were wreaking havoc on the communities, they actually didn’t have any access to power.”
That explanation may clarify the mechanics, but it does not erase the broader trust problem. Tatishe Nteta, a professor of political science at UMass Amherst, said, “There has been little to no clear communication of the benefits, economic or otherwise, that are associated with data centers for everyday Americans.”
Moratoriums buy time, not consent
New York imposed a one-year moratorium on permits for large data center projects while the state finalizes an environmental review process. These pauses typically last one or two years, while data centers may not come online for two, three, four, or five years. The timeline gives opponents room to organize and gives officials time to examine projects before construction becomes a fait accompli.
Katie Muth, a Democratic senator, has proposed a moratorium, while Stacy Garrity, a Republican candidate for Pennsylvania governor, is part of a political environment where opposition crosses party lines. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott offers the clearest example of that shift: he moved from calling Texas the “epicenter of AI development” to implementing restrictions and halting approvals on 1,800 data center proposals.
Ben Green, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, described the anger behind the resistance: “Massive corporations coming in and forcing a community to deal with some type of project and not really giving a community any voice and operating in secrecy—no one’s really a fan of that.” Ending NDAs addresses one part of that complaint, but communities are also asking who pays for infrastructure, who receives the benefits, and who controls the land.
Amazon’s policy change matters because secrecy has become politically expensive. It does not settle the fight over water, power, permits, or eminent domain; it simply removes one reason for residents to assume the worst. The last day to exhibit at Disrupt is October 2, and its doors open October 13—dates that may matter to the technology industry, though local communities are still waiting for a less polished answer about what these projects will cost them.
Based on
