Americans agree AI data centers are a problem — but nobody agrees on the solution

Two in three Americans say the AI data center build-out will put too much pressure on their local electricity grids, water supplies and household bills — a rare consensus that cuts across party lines.

But no solution comes close to matching it: Americans reject sending data centers offshore to allies like Australia, and even keeping AI infrastructure on American soil falls short of a majority — as governments from New York to Canberra race to frame the answer first.

The latest Bondi Partners U.S. Pulse poll finds 66 percent of Americans agree that building large AI data centers in American communities will put too much pressure on local electricity grids, water supplies and household bills. Just 9 percent disagree.

The consensus spans the political spectrum — 75 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents — making it the strongest cross-partisan agreement the U.S. Pulse has recorded on a contested issue in five monthly waves.

But that is where the agreement ends. Asked about the two most obvious responses, Americans endorse neither:

Building more AI data centers in allied countries like Australia is rejected, 26 percent in favour to 32 percent opposed — with fully 42 percent taking no position at all.

Keeping AI infrastructure on American soil, even at the cost of more data centers near American communities, draws 36 percent support against 25 percent opposition — well short of a majority. Even among Republicans, usually the most reliably nationalist group, only 49 percent agree.

The Bondi Partners U.S. Pulse — a nationally representative poll delivered by YouGov — asked Americans to rate three statements, after a neutral preamble noting that AI requires large data centers that can use significant electricity, water and land, and that some U.S. technology companies are considering building more data centers in allied countries like Australia:

• “Building large AI data centers in American communities will put too much pressure on local electricity grids, water supplies and household bills.”
• “U.S. technology companies should build more AI data centers in allied countries like Australia to reduce pressure on American communities.”
• “The United States should keep important AI infrastructure on American soil, even if that means more data centers are built near American communities.”

AI infrastructure — the headline finding

Furious agreement on the problem

Two-thirds of Americans expect the AI build-out to strain their communities — and the feeling is intense as well as broad. Forty-one percent strongly agree, the highest intensity reading the series has recorded, rising to 53 percent of Democrats.

There is no meaningful demographic exception: majorities of every party, every age group, every region and every education level agree, from 60 percent of Republicans to 71 percent of over-65s.

No agreement on the answer

Neither solution tested commands anything like the consensus on the problem.

The offshore option fails with every partisan group: Democrats oppose it 25 to 36, Republicans 28 to 32, and Independents split 25 to 27.

The ‘keep it in America’ option divides the parties: Republicans in favour 49 to 18, Democrats against 29 to 34. Only Americans who voted for the President in 2024 give it a majority — 53 percent — still thirteen points short of the shared anxiety about the problem.

Opposition comes from two directions at once

On the left, the objection is to the build-out itself: among the most liberal Americans, four in ten strongly reject both building offshore and building at home. On the right, the objection is economic nationalism — infrastructure should stay American even if communities carry the cost.

Because the two objections point in opposite directions, neither converts the shared anxiety into a mandate. And the middle is enormous: 42 percent of Americans take no position on the allied option, with under-45s the most open to it.

What this means for the midterms

The poll lands in the middle of a campaign season in which data centers are moving from specialist energy policy into mainstream electoral politics. The argument is no longer about artificial intelligence or technological leadership — it is about who pays for the electricity, grid, water and land behind the build-out.

The backlash is unusually cross-partisan. A Bloomberg analysis found 25 federal and gubernatorial candidates have run ads since December opposing data centers or attacking an opponent for supporting them — twelve of them Republicans, some breaking directly with President Trump’s pro-build position in states including Wisconsin, Wyoming and Georgia.

The clearest test is Ohio’s Senate race, which could determine control of the chamber. Democrat Sherrod Brown is running television ads casting Republican Senator Jon Husted as “the face of data centers,” blaming tax deals and expedited approvals for higher electricity bills; Husted is defending the projects as jobs and tax revenue while signing on to the President’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge.

That pledge — a nonbinding commitment by tech companies, Republican governors and major utilities that households will not fund the build-out — is itself an acknowledgment that the issue has become a political liability, and a bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act is advancing in the House. Both parties are converging on a “build, but pay your own way” formula rather than either an unrestricted build-out or a blanket ban.

This poll explains both sides of that scramble: a 66 percent problem consensus no candidate can ignore, and a solution vacuum no one has yet filled. With 42 percent of Americans undecided on even the most novel option tested, the terms of the debate are still there to be won — which is precisely why both parties are racing to define them before November.

Commentary

Quotes attributable to Joe Hockey, President and Founding Partner, Bondi Partners:

“American politics has found a rare patch of common ground: two-thirds of voters, across both parties, believe the AI build-out is coming at their expense: their power bills, their water, their neighbourhoods. When two-thirds of Americans agree on anything, politicians take note.”

“Data centers are becoming to these midterms what gas prices have been to elections past: the local, physical bill for a global transformation. Voters can photograph a data center, they can point at it, and they can blame someone for it. That is what makes this dangerous for incumbents in tight races.”

“The politics will land where the costs land. The winning position in November won’t be ‘build at any cost’ and it won’t be ‘ban it all’. It might be ‘build it, but pay your own way.’ Any politician or company that can’t show households they’re protected is handing their opponent a campaign ad.”

Quotes attributable to Mick Mulvaney, Senior Adviser to Bondi Partners and former acting Chief of Staff during the first Trump presidency:

“The number that would stop me cold if I were back in the White House is 49. Not even half of Republicans will back keeping AI infrastructure on American soil once it means a data center near their own community. For the most ‘America First’ electorate in modern history, that is remarkable: the base is telling you the cost-of-living argument is beating the sovereignty argument.”

“Republican candidates are already running against data centers in Wisconsin, Wyoming and Georgia, against their own president’s position. That does not happen unless their internal polling looks like this poll. A 66 percent problem with no owned solution, four months out from a midterm, is an invitation. And both parties just received it.”

Context

The July wave was fielded as governments began moving to define the solution.

On 14 July 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the nation’s first statewide moratorium on large data center construction — an executive order pausing permits for facilities of 50 megawatts or more for up to a year while the state develops environmental and grid-protection standards. Hochul said data center development “threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers.” New York’s legislature passed its own pause in June, and moratoriums have been proposed in at least a dozen states. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found only one in three Americans approves of the pace of data center construction.

A day later, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese used a speech at the University of Sydney to announce what he called a world first: a single national framework for the economic, social, security and environmental questions of AI. Legislated, mandatory Australian AI standards will require large-scale AI data centres to add as much power to the grid as they use, underwrite new electricity generation, pay the full cost of grid connection and minimise water use — paired with faster, streamlined approvals for investors and a new Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. On copyright, he warned AI companies that “not everything produced in Australia is up for grabs.” The announcements come as Anthropic reportedly seeks 1.4 gigawatts of Australian data centre capacity — an investment worth up to US$15 billion that would make Australia its second home for training AI models — and as Lowy Institute polling finds 64 percent of Australians believe AI’s risks outweigh its benefits.

The White House has warned states against regulating the AI industry, arguing restrictions cede ground to China. The federal policy space remains unfilled.

About the Bondi Partners U.S. Pulse

The Bondi Partners U.S. Pulse is a monthly polling series measuring American attitudes on issues of public policy that have direct implications for Australia and its relationship with the United States. It is the only poll that regularly tracks American attitudes to the issues that impact the Australia–U.S. relationship.

The U.S. Pulse is commissioned by Bondi Partners, the strategic advisory firm founded by former Australian Treasurer and Ambassador to the United States, Joe Hockey, who served as ambassador during the first Trump presidency.

Methodology

The Bondi Partners U.S. Pulse is conducted by YouGov. This wave surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults using YouGov’s online panel and was weighted to be nationally representative of the U.S. adult population by age, gender, race, education, and 2024 presidential vote. The overall margin of error is ±3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.

Fieldwork was conducted from 9 to 13 July 2026. The three AI infrastructure statements were fielded for the first time this wave and form a baseline for future trend measurement; the U.S.-Australia Alliance Tracker has been fielded in all five waves since March 2026. Party groups use leaned party identification.

July 2026 — agree / disagree (%)

“Agree” and “disagree” are the combined top-two and bottom-two boxes; the balance is “neither” plus “don’t know”. Party groups use leaned party identification.