Progressives Push AI Data Center Curbs as Billionaires Float Tax Alternatives

Progressive lawmakers are sharpening their critique of artificial intelligence, framing the technology as an accelerator of inequality that requires aggressive checks on data centers, campaign spending and job losses. Their approach sets them apart from both party moderates and technology executives who favor measures to spread AI's gains rather than slow its deployment.

Senator Bernie Sanders has placed AI at the center of his long-running arguments about concentrated wealth and political influence. He has proposed a moratorium on new data centers and called for international cooperation with China on safety standards. Sanders has also urged Democrats to reject donations from super PACs tied to the industry, introducing legislation to abolish the groups altogether. At a recent press event, he highlighted what he described as the growing sway of AI-linked political spending.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the data-center push with public demonstrations that include samples of discolored water from communities near Meta facilities in Georgia. She has pressed for congressional scrutiny of the facilities' effects on local water supplies and has co-sponsored the DEFIANCE Act, which targets deepfakes and other AI harms to children. Representative Ro Khanna, another co-sponsor of the super PAC measure, has labeled many data centers extractive and released a "Work for America" plan that would create a million public-sector jobs in infrastructure and technical training as a buffer against automation.

These positions reflect a broader progressive calculation that AI's infrastructure and financial footprints demand immediate regulatory attention. Data centers consume significant electricity and water, and their expansion has already sparked local opposition in several states. At the same time, the industry's rapid growth has produced new sources of political money that progressives view as a threat to their agenda on taxation and labor policy.

Technology billionaires have responded with their own set of proposals aimed at heading off a sharper political backlash. Jeff Bezos recently argued that the bottom half of earners should owe no federal income tax, contending that further increases on high earners would do little to help typical workers. Sam Altman of OpenAI has shifted from universal basic income toward what he calls universal basic compute, giving individuals direct access to AI tools rather than cash transfers. OpenAI has also floated a broader social contract that includes taxes on AI-driven profits, support for a shorter workweek and a public fund financed by automated labor.

Elon Musk has advocated even larger direct payments, suggesting that robotic productivity could generate enough growth to fund substantial checks without triggering inflation. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has warned in essays that AI could concentrate wealth further if left unaddressed, though he has stopped short of endorsing wealth taxes.

The two camps are effectively offering competing diagnoses of the same risk: that AI could eliminate large numbers of jobs while enriching a small number of companies and individuals. Progressives see structural limits on infrastructure and political spending as necessary correctives. Industry leaders emphasize mechanisms that preserve rapid development while redistributing some of its output. How these arguments play out will help determine whether the next phase of AI policy tilts toward restraint or toward managed expansion.