Native American Political Leaders Navigate Fractured Stances on Data Center Expansion

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure has become a defining political fault line for Native American leaders running in this year’s elections. From New Mexico to Alaska, prominent Indigenous candidates are being forced to articulate clear positions on whether to welcome or restrict massive data center developments that promise jobs but threaten water resources, energy grids, and sacred sites.

Among those facing scrutiny are Deb Haaland, running for governor of New Mexico; Sharice Davids, seeking re-election to the U.S. House from Kansas; Mary Peltola, competing for a U.S. Senate seat in Alaska; and Peggy Flanagan, who recently won the Democratic-Farmer-Labor primary for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota.

Flanagan has adopted a forceful rhetorical stance against the technology, describing AI as an “existential threat to us if it gets out of control” during a July debate with Minnesota Public Radio News. This positioning aligns with her primary campaign strategy, which included advertisements attacking opponent Angie Craig’s ties to the cryptocurrency industry. Political analysts view Flanagan’s opposition to AI and data centers as a continuation of her broader anti-corporate-money platform heading into November.

Davids, a former mixed martial artist and lawyer, has taken a more measured approach. She avoided public confrontations on the issue but stated in a July voter guide that no data center should proceed if it raises household electricity costs, depletes limited water supplies, or burdens local Kansas communities. Notably, Davids serves on committees related to Transportation, Small Business, and Agriculture, rather than those with direct jurisdiction over data center regulation, making her silence strategically convenient. However, in February, she met with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, an organization that later voted against a rollback of Section 106 consultation requirements, warning it would undermine tribal authority.

In New Mexico, Haaland’s campaign has proposed that high-energy industries fund their own renewable energy infrastructure, including solar, wind, and geothermal sources, to offset data center consumption. Yet she has been hesitant to oppose Project Jupiter, Oracle’s sprawling complex in Santa Teresa. When pressed by a voter recently, Haaland admitted she lacked the power to halt the project. Her campaign subsequently announced support for a moratorium on new developments until “strong, reliable guardrails” are established.

This shift comes amid revelations from Searchlight New Mexico that Haaland’s campaign received $87,200 in donations from executives at Oracle and Clayco, the construction firm behind Project Jupiter. While Santa Fe and Socorro Counties have already enacted moratoriums, and four Democratic state legislators have proposed similar measures, Haaland’s stance is viewed as a narrower, more heavily hedged version of the same proposal. Climate justice activists are now circulating a petition demanding Haaland return the donations and commit to a blanket ban on AI data centers, including Project Jupiter, which Oracle reports is 26% complete.

In Alaska, Senator Peltola has taken a different tack, stating she will follow the lead of local constituents provided the projects do not strain the electrical grid for existing ratepayers. This contrasts sharply with her opponent, Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, who advocates for placing data centers on military installations, and faces scrutiny over a $500 million proposal by Stak Energy in the North Slope region. Peltola’s reliance on “local support” is complicated by the unique land tenure system in Alaska, where approximately 44 million acres are controlled by Alaska Native corporations. These for-profit entities, created by federal law in 1971, answer to fiduciary duties rather than shareholder votes, meaning corporate boards may pursue federal contracts and development deals despite objections from community members.

Beyond individual campaign positions, the debate intersects with broader legal battles over Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This clause requires federal agencies to assess how projects affect historic sites. Proposed changes to the section could allow developers to bypass federal review on tribal lands, a move opposed by more than 700 organizations, including Native Nations. The current rewrite follows a similar attempt by the Trump administration’s first term, which issued Secretarial Order 3389 to exempt major energy projects from review before being reversed by the Biden administration.

Advocates warn that data center developers are the latest entrants in a long-running effort by oil, transmission, and mining industries to weaken historic preservation safeguards. As these industries converge on tribal lands, Native candidates face intense pressure to ensure that Indigenous nations retain their voice in decisions that could permanently alter their environments and sovereignty.