The facts
Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering Emil Michael told Fox News Digital that foreign adversaries are running “psy‑op” campaigns to fuel opposition to data centers, which he described as the “electricity that fuels the superintelligence revolution.” Michael warned that the movement to curb AI‑related infrastructure is being pushed by America’s adversaries. Senator Ted Cruz echoed concerns that foreign influence could persuade Americans to reject data‑center development, potentially increasing reliance on other nations for AI. The article also notes that tech entrepreneur Neville Roy Singham has funneled $278 million into nonprofits, some of which oppose data‑center projects and are described as pro‑China groups. The Department of War’s AI user base has risen from roughly 70,000 to about 1.7 million, with applications in enterprise operations, warfighting and intelligence.
Our take
Emil Michael’s warning that foreign psy‑ops are behind every local protest against a server farm feels like a classic case of blowing a backyard dispute out of proportion. He paints data‑center opposition as a coordinated propaganda effort, yet the only concrete evidence he offers is a vague reference to “malign influence” and a comparison to past anti‑fracking campaigns. The real story, however, is the Department of War’s own rapid AI expansion – from 70,000 to 1.7 million users – which is turning ordinary infrastructure into a strategic asset. When a bureaucrat starts labeling concerned neighbors as enemy agents, it suggests a deeper anxiety: the Pentagon may be more worried about losing control over the narrative than about the actual security threat. Senator Cruz’s remarks reinforce this narrative, framing any hesitation to build data centers as a potential dependency on foreign AI capabilities. While it’s true that foreign actors have funded groups opposing data‑center development, the leap from funding to a nationwide psy‑op is unsupported by the source. The focus on Neville Roy Singham’s donations adds a layer of intrigue, but the article does not prove that his contributions are part of a coordinated foreign campaign. In short, the War Department’s alarm sounds less like a genuine intelligence warning and more like an attempt to delegitimize grassroots concerns by casting them as foreign‑engineered. That strategy may backfire, turning ordinary citizens into skeptical watchdogs rather than obedient participants in the AI race. The takeaway? When the fucking government starts calling local NIMBYism “communist infiltration,” it’s time to question whether the real threat is the data center or the narrative being forced upon the public.
