Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday called for a temporary freeze on the construction and expansion of artificial intelligence data centers across the United States, arguing that the country must slow down and confront the social, economic, and moral consequences of a technology he says is advancing far faster than democracy can respond. Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, the Vermont independent warned that AI is being shaped primarily to benefit the wealthiest one percent while ordinary Americans absorb the costs.
“We have not had a serious national discussion about what artificial intelligence means for workers, for children, or for our democracy,” Sanders said. “What we are being told by the tech giants is that this technology is coming no matter what, and if you lose your job, too bad—you’ll just have to adapt.”
Sanders’ remarks mark one of the strongest calls yet by a major U.S. lawmaker to halt the physical infrastructure powering the AI boom. Data centers—massive facilities that house the servers required to train and operate AI systems—have rapidly expanded across the country as companies race to scale up artificial intelligence capabilities. For Sanders, that expansion has already begun to impose real and immediate costs on local communities.
“These data centers are popping up everywhere,” Sanders said. “They consume enormous amounts of electricity, strain local power grids, and drive up energy costs for working families. Meanwhile, the profits flow to a handful of massive corporations.”
Data centers are the backbone of modern AI, providing the computational power needed to train large models and deploy them at scale. Companies such as Google, OpenAI, and X are investing billions of dollars in new facilities and energy infrastructure to support increasingly powerful systems. Industry leaders argue that rapid expansion is essential for innovation, economic growth, and maintaining U.S. leadership in global technology.
Sanders sees the situation very differently. He argues that the speed of AI development has outpaced both public understanding and legal oversight, creating a dangerous imbalance between corporate power and democratic control. “Our laws, our institutions, and our political system are not keeping up,” he said. “That is not an accident—it is the result of enormous financial influence.”
The senator’s call for a freeze places him in direct opposition to the approach of President Donald Trump’s administration, which has framed artificial intelligence as a strategic battlefield in global competition, particularly with China. The administration has pushed for rapid AI development, arguing that slowing down would risk ceding technological dominance to foreign rivals.
President Trump has appointed venture capitalist David Sacks as his top adviser on AI and cryptocurrency and has signed executive orders designed to accelerate innovation while limiting the ability of individual states to impose their own regulations. Under one such order, the Justice Department is instructed to challenge state-level AI regulations deemed to interfere with national technological priorities.
That federal-first approach emerged after repeated failures in Congress to pass comprehensive AI governance legislation or a nationwide framework for oversight. Instead, the administration has emphasized growth, investment, and international competition—an outlook strongly supported by Vice President JD Vance and many Republican lawmakers.
Sanders argues that this strategy puts corporate profits and geopolitical rivalry ahead of the public interest. “We are being told we must move at breakneck speed because of China,” he said. “But moving fast without rules doesn’t make us stronger. It makes us reckless.”
He also accused the administration of being overly influenced by powerful tech figures, pointing to the enormous political spending coming from Silicon Valley. Sanders cited reports that Elon Musk contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to President Trump’s campaign, arguing that such financial influence helps explain why Congress has struggled to act decisively on AI regulation.
“When a handful of billionaires can pour unlimited money into politics, it should surprise no one that their interests come first,” Sanders said. “That is not democracy.”
The senator’s concerns extend beyond economics to broader social consequences. He warned that AI could accelerate job displacement on a massive scale if left unchecked, particularly in sectors such as transportation, customer service, media, and even professional fields. Without strong labor protections, retraining programs, and clear rules, Sanders said, millions of workers could be left behind.
He also raised alarms about the impact of AI on children, privacy, and mental health, arguing that society has yet to grapple seriously with how powerful algorithms shape attention, behavior, and access to information. “We don’t let new drugs onto the market without testing,” Sanders said. “Why are we doing that with technologies that could reshape every aspect of our lives?”
The response to Sanders’ proposal has been sharply divided. Progressive advocates praised his willingness to challenge the tech industry and called the idea of a temporary freeze a necessary pause to allow thoughtful policymaking. Environmental groups also echoed his concerns about the massive energy consumption of data centers, noting their growing carbon footprint and water usage.
Industry leaders and administration officials pushed back, warning that a freeze could harm innovation and economic competitiveness. “If we stop building the infrastructure for AI, we fall behind,” said one technology policy adviser. “Other countries will not wait for us to finish debating.”
Even within the Republican Party, however, there are signs of unease about unchecked AI growth. Some conservative lawmakers have called for stronger safeguards around data privacy, national security, and the societal impact of automation, suggesting that bipartisan concern may be growing—even if consensus remains elusive.
For now, Sanders’ proposal remains aspirational rather than legislative. But his comments have injected new urgency into a debate that many lawmakers have struggled to address. As AI systems become more powerful and more deeply embedded in daily life, the question of who benefits—and who pays—has become impossible to ignore.
“This is a moment of choice,” Sanders said. “We can allow technology to be shaped by and for the richest people in this country, or we can slow down, think, and make sure it serves the needs of all Americans.”
As data centers continue to rise and AI’s influence spreads, Sanders’ call for restraint challenges Washington to confront a future that is arriving faster than its rules—and faster than its politics—are prepared to handle.
Leave a Reply