The review of the construction of the AI data center by the U.S. Congress is further expanding. Jamie Raskin, the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has sent letters to Amazon, Google, Meta, and Oracle, requesting the four companies to disclose the confidentiality agreements they have signed with government officials regarding their data center projects and to provide more detailed project information.

The focus of this investigation is not on the AI model itself, but rather on how many project terms, energy requirements, resource consumption, and government support arrangements are kept out of the public eye by confidentiality agreements when large technology companies advance data center construction at the local level.

Congress begins to press for an explanation of why the data center project requires confidentiality

Raskin requires four companies to explain their data center project portfolio, as well as the scope and specific methods of using non-disclosure agreements ( NDA ) in related projects.

His core objection is that if the basic terms of the project are kept confidential for a long time, it will be very difficult for local residents to assess the impact that the data center will have on electricity prices, water resources, local finances, and surrounding communities, and it will also be hard to supervise the government officials responsible for approving the project.

Amazon responded that the company no longer uses such NDA with government partners involved in data center projects. Google, Meta, and Oracle did not immediately comment by the time of this report.

Confidentiality issues are becoming an important part of the opposition from data centers.

In recent times, disputes surrounding the AI data center have intensified in several locations across the United States. The concerns raised by local communities mainly focus on several aspects: large data centers may increase the cost of power infrastructure and consume a significant amount of water resources, while many of these projects also receive tax incentives or other forms of local support.

In this case, if there are numerous confidentiality agreements during the project negotiation and approval process, residents often only become aware of the specific scale and resource requirements after the project is approved. This has gradually led to "lack of transparency" becoming one of the important reasons against the construction of data centers.

The tech industry believes that some confidentiality arrangements are commercially necessary. For example, disclosing the location and scale of a project too early before it is implemented could potentially reveal competitive information, or it might lead to local contractors and suppliers raising their prices upon learning that large tech companies are involved.

Therefore, the core of the current controversy is not whether all project details should be made public, but where the boundary should be drawn between a company's need for business confidentiality and the transparency of local government decision-making.

Congress has begun to push for restrictions on data centers NDA

This letter is not an isolated action.

Raskin and Democratic Representative Greg Landsman, along with Republican Representative Tom Barrett, jointly introduced the bill No Secrets for Data Centers Act on September 24th, aiming to restrict federal, state, and local government officials from using NDA to conceal information related to data center projects.

According to the bill, if government officials conceal details of data center projects through confidentiality agreements, the relevant NDA will be restricted or invalidated; if data centers receive government incentives, and those incentives include requirements for the government to keep project information confidential, they may also be subject to restrictions.

This indicates that the focus of regulation is shifting from merely requiring companies to "voluntarily increase transparency" to gradually imposing legislative restrictions on confidentiality arrangements between governments and technology companies.

AI Data centers are becoming political issues from industrial projects

AI In the past, infrastructure was mainly viewed as an issue of technology and capital expenditure. However, with the rapid growth in the number and scale of data centers, it has increasingly come to directly affect local power grids, land, water resources, and fiscal policies.

This has also gradually brought the construction of data centers, which is originally highly technical in nature, into broader public policy discussions.

Reports indicate that data centers have become an important issue in some states and districts. Some places have begun to re-examine the tax incentives previously granted to these projects, and members of Congress have also started to demand that tech companies bear more of the costs associated with power infrastructure or to increase the transparency of these projects.

Therefore, the changes reflected in this inquiry into Amazon, Google, Meta, and Oracle are that U.S. regulation surrounding AI data centers is moving from focusing on "whether they can be built and how much electricity is required" to focusing more on "how the projects were approved, who bears the costs, and how much local residents actually knew before the approval process."

If this trend continues, in the future, large AI data center projects may face constraints not only regarding power and land supply but also more stringent information disclosure requirements and demands for local government transparency.