Experts Dispute Claims of Chinese Interference in US Data Centre Opposition
While lawmakers and investors cite reports linking protests to the Chinese government, independent researchers find no evidence of coordinated influence operations.
US lawmakers and data centre investors have increasingly attributed local opposition to AI infrastructure to interference by the Chinese government, citing reports from OpenAI and the Bitcoin Policy Institute. However, experts and analysts, including Graphika and academics from the Brookings Institute and Stanford University, dispute these claims. They argue that domestic concerns over energy costs and local impacts are the primary drivers of the protests. While some foreign actors may be amplifying existing grievances, evidence of organised, large-scale Chinese influence operations remains unproven.
OpenAI released a report on Wednesday describing a cluster of accounts originating in China that spread anti-data centre messages using ChatGPT-generated images. The company noted that these accounts were attempting to amplify existing public concerns about energy prices and local impacts, but found no evidence of a meaningful breakout in public opinion. Despite this, the report has fuelled political rhetoric, with Senator Tom Cotton sending a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche requesting an investigation into foreign influence led by the Chinese Communist Party.
Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee also expressed concerns about foreign campaigns targeting data centre development in a letter to the White House and the FBI last week. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox Business last month that locations attempting to build data centres are being "bombarded" with foreign propaganda. Canadian investor Kevin O’Leary used a graphic from a Bitcoin Policy Institute report in a May video to claim foreign influence was fueling opposition to his controversial data centre project in Utah.
Graphika analyst Dina Sadek stated that the company has not seen evidence of organized or scaled influence operations traceable to a foreign actor, with two exceptions: a cross-platform network using AI avatars and some Facebook pages with administrators in Bangladesh producing AI-generated anti-data centre images. Sadek emphasised that domestic US actors are leading the online anti-data centre conversation, suggesting that foreign involvement is limited to amplifying organic grievances rather than orchestrating them.
Polling data supports the view that domestic sentiment is the primary driver of the opposition. A poll from climate outlet Heatmap released last week showed that more than half of Americans support a moratorium on data centre development. Separate polling from UK-based agency Public First released in early June indicated that support for data centres in the US was the lowest among 15 countries surveyed.
Experts such as Kyle Chan from the Brookings Institute and Graham Webster from Stanford University argue that the narrative of Chinese interference lacks concrete evidence. Chan noted that high-level discussions between US and Chinese experts are common, and Webster pointed out that Chinese state media often mirrors US media coverage due to standard wire service practices. Both scholars cautioned against overstating the impact of foreign actors, suggesting that Beijing is more likely amplifying legitimate social grievances than creating them.
Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, stated he began investigating the issue after a public AI safety conversation in April hosted by Senator Bernie Sanders, which included two Chinese experts. However, experts remain skeptical of the report’s claims that Beijing is directly involved, noting that the evidence cited often consists of standard media coverage rather than coordinated influence campaigns.
