In Michigan, three Democratic candidates who ran against the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence companies won their primaries. Their proposals ranged from restricting data centers to placing parts of the AI industry under government control. In Wisconsin, another candidate campaigning against data center development came within a few thousand votes of winning.
Some observers will describe these results as a victory for socialism. Others will call them evidence of a growing populist backlash against corporations and technological disruption. But there is another way to understand what is happening. The anti-AI movement taking shape on the left looks remarkably similar to the climate movement that preceded it. In many cases, it is being led by the same activists, organizations, and political networks.
What is different this time is that some conservatives are helping create the political conditions that allow that movement to grow.
That does not mean Republicans are suddenly voting for progressive candidates in Democratic primaries. The connection is more indirect. Conservative skepticism toward artificial intelligence, data centers, and large technology companies has created an unusual area of agreement with environmental activists. Climate groups have recognized the opportunity and are increasingly attaching longstanding environmental priorities to a much broader public backlash against AI.
Michigan offers several examples.
Abdul El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens for the Democratic Senate nomination despite nearly $65 million in outside and establishment spending, making it the most expensive Democratic primary on record. One of the most striking parts of El-Sayed’s platform is his proposal for government ownership of the AI industry. But his politics extend well beyond artificial intelligence. He has also opposed fossil fuels and received support from organizations such as Oil Change Action and Friends of the Earth, groups known for aggressive campaigns against oil and gas development.
Those positions would ordinarily create serious political problems for a candidate seeking statewide office in Michigan, a state whose economy remains closely tied to manufacturing and the auto industry. Yet AI opposition gave El-Sayed a different way to frame an agenda that might otherwise have struggled to gain traction.
The same pattern appears elsewhere.
William Lawrence won the Democratic nomination in a competitive House district after campaigning for a federal moratorium on new data center construction. Lawrence is also a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, one of the most prominent progressive climate organizations in the country.
Donavan McKinney, who defeated an incumbent congressman in Detroit while criticizing data center development, likewise came out of the environmental movement. Before entering electoral politics, he worked as a political director for Climate Power, a group focused on climate-related political messaging.
Even the methods used by today’s anti-AI campaign resemble earlier environmental fights. Activists are organizing local protests, challenging permits, pushing state and federal restrictions, and turning to litigation to delay or stop projects. The subject has changed, but the political playbook has not.
That overlap matters because public opinion on AI is different from public opinion on energy or economic growth in the abstract. Americans generally like cheap electricity, new investment, and job creation. But once those projects are connected to data centers and artificial intelligence, skepticism rises quickly. A renewable-energy project may sound appealing until voters hear that much of its output will serve a massive data center. A new industrial development may sound like economic growth until it is described as part of the AI boom.
That creates an opening for environmental activists who have struggled to sell voters on scarcity as an end in itself.
Conservatives should be careful about joining that effort simply because they share some concerns about AI. Those concerns are not imaginary. Data centers can consume enormous amounts of electricity and water. Local governments have sometimes offered generous tax incentives to companies that hardly need them. Developers have also made the mistake of entering communities without first building enough local support.
Those problems deserve serious policy responses.
Communities hosting data centers should share more directly in the economic benefits. Governments should reconsider special tax breaks for some of the most valuable companies in the world. AI companies should also bear responsibility for the new electricity demand they create rather than shifting those costs onto ordinary ratepayers. Policies requiring developers to build, purchase, or otherwise secure new power generation can address legitimate concerns without freezing economic development.
That is a very different approach from simply blocking construction.
The larger danger is that opposition to AI becomes another vehicle for a politics built around fear of growth. The climate movement has used similar arguments before against industries and technologies that later became essential parts of the American economy.
Fracking was once described as an unacceptable environmental threat. Instead, it helped turn the United States into the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas while lowering energy costs for households and manufacturers. Nuclear power spent decades under political attack, only to regain bipartisan support as policymakers recognized the value of reliable, emissions-free electricity. Agricultural innovations including synthetic fertilizer and genetically modified crops faced years of environmental criticism even as they increased yields and helped feed growing populations.
None of those technologies came without tradeoffs. Neither will artificial intelligence. But the existence of tradeoffs is an argument for better policy, not necessarily for stopping development altogether.
The Michigan Democratic primary results make the political alignment increasingly difficult to ignore. El-Sayed, Lawrence, and McKinney may be campaigning against AI and data centers, but their political roots are deeply connected to the environmental left.
