Trump Expands His Plan to Have Data Centers Take Over Public Lands

President Trump is looking to potentially build 12 new data centers on federal public lands—something the vast majority of Americans are against, regardless of political affiliation.

The Washington Sun reported Friday that the Bureau of Land Management is considering placing centers on 17,600 acres of public land in six states: Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Local leaders told the publication they weren’t aware of the proposal. Valar Atomics, Copia Power, Rhea Data, and Arevia Power are the companies behind the push. It’s unclear how the nearly 18,000 acres will be divvied up among the 12 proposed centers.

The BLM argues that the plans are for the greater good, brushing off environmental and aesthetic concerns while claiming that its review process will “protect natural resources while enabling responsible infrastructure development that can deliver benefits to the American people” like “expanded broadband capacity, improved electrical reliability, and support for growing technology-driven economies.”

Trump has spent months defending AI and data centers, becoming even more vocal over the last week. Others aren’t convinced.

“If there are places where communities think it is appropriate to build data centers, focus on those,” Center for Western Priorities conservation group director Aaron Weiss said. “The Trump administration needs to stop cutting the public out of public land management. The solution is more public notice and more opportunities for stakeholders to shape projects on the front end.”

This move comes as backlash against data centers hits a fever pitch.

Over 500 counties or municipalities have either restricted or entirely banned data center development this year. And according to Data Center Watch, at least 75 projects worth a collective $130 billion were interrupted in the first quarter of 2026.

“Ongoing data center build-out represents a culmination of everything that has made the U.S. economy so harshly unequal moving in right next door,” wrote The New Republic’s Kate Aronoff. “Inside its proverbial walls are local entrepreneurs, offshore middlemen, and multinational corporations that can exploit state-sanctioned tax shelters, financial engineering schemes, and regulatory arbitrage to rapidly accumulate wealth on the basis of having started off with a decent amount of it.”

Now, in the face of this obvious opposition, with midterms drawing closer by the day, Trump wants to put 12 more on public lands.

“If there were to be more [data centers], I honestly don’t know what that would even look like,” Idaho Sierra Club Director Lisa Young told the Sun. “Would that mean even more gas plants? Would that mean turning back on coal plants longer? What does that mean for our water resources? It’s honestly kind of apocalyptic to think about.”

For all his belaboring of the supposed national rise in crime, Donald Trump is the reason why “gangster weapons” will proliferate on the streets.

The president reportedly ordered the Justice Department not to appeal an August court ruling that effectively allowed Americans to buy, sell, and own short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers.

At the time, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix—a Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas—ruled that most firearm restrictions enacted in the wake of the 1934 National Firearms Act were unconstitutional.

Several insiders that spoke with CBS News Thursday said that Trump himself directed the DOJ not to get involved in the matter. Trump also reportedly promised some Republican lawmakers that he would not allow the agency to undermine the ruling.

“Letting the lower court ruling stand runs counter to the recommendations of some career and politically appointed lawyers at the Justice Department across multiple offices who disagree with the court’s opinion, several of the sources said, adding that they have warned it is already beginning to adversely impact federal firearms prosecutions across the country,” CBS reported.

Some of the network’s sources noted that the president’s order—and the internal decision to follow it—upends the DOJ’s “duty to defend,” a long-standing legal principle that requires the agency to do everything within its power to defend the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

A Justice Department official told CBS News that it does not plan to appeal the ruling. A spokesperson for the agency added that the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “will issue guidance soon to implement the court’s order.”

The ruling did not apply to AR-15s or Glock pistols, which are regulated under a different federal law that also bans the sale of guns to convicted felons.

“Anyone who would have been prohibited from buying a firearm under the old structure is still prohibited from buying a firearm under the structure that now exists after the federal district court’s decision,” said a White House spokesperson in a statement to the network. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place and will continue to be enforced by federal law enforcement.”

Republican donors with no ties to Wisconsin are pouring their money into a random House candidate there—who happens to be Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s son-in-law. 

Michael Alfonso, a 26-year-old running for Wisconsin’s 7th district, has collected money from at least 25 transportation executives, industry lobbyists, and corporate PACS, The Bulwark reported Friday. So far, his campaign has managed to raise $1.3 million, despite the fact that Alfonso has never held public office. If elected, he would be the youngest person in Congress. 

These donors aren’t mad Alfonso-heads—they’re transportation industry figures who appear to be seeking federal contracts and favors. 

For example, David Parker, the chairman and CEO of the trucking company Covenant Logistics, and his wife paid a whopping $10,000 to Alfonso’s campaign, despite having no connection to Wisconsin. Weeks later, Duffy’s department renewed Covenant’s exemption from a federal driver supervision requirement for another five years. 

When questioned about the donation, a spokesperson for Parker declined to comment. But, separately, he’s gushed over the “great things” Duffy’s doing at the DOT. 

The Bulwark identified multiple situations in which transportation companies and industry figures donated to Alfonso—and either won big federal contracts or had vested interest in staying on Duffy’s good side. 

Air Space Intelligence, an AI-powered air-traffic software start-up, won a $875 million contract with the Federal Aviation Administration just months after its corporate PAC donated to Alfonso. Peter Cipriano (who was a senior adviser to Donald Trump’s DOT during his first term) was tapped to lead the multibillion-dollar redevelopment of the New York City transportation hub Penn Station two months after donating $2,602.54 to Alfonso’s campaign. Sharad Tak, the CEO of ST LNG, a company seeking a port license of DOT, and his wife donated a combined $7,500 to Alfonso’s campaign. In May, Fairwood Peninsula Energy, another LNG exporter, donated $125,000 to Northwoods Future PAC, a super PAC supporting Alfonso.

Duffy has also poured $1 million from his dormant campaign committee toward Alfonso’s campaign.  

Staff in the Department of Homeland Security circulated an internal email last year listing states and counties that offer election materials in languages other than English, raising questions about the Trump administration’s plans for the midterm elections and beyond.

NPR obtained the email thanks to a Democratic National Committee lawsuit over a public records request. The 78-page list of states and counties was attached to a Department of Justice criminal checklist on requirements for prosecuting election crimes.

The content of the email is worrying, as it could be a preview of the states and precincts the Trump administration will be monitoring, or worse, where it will be intimidating voters and reducing turnout. Trump and other Republicans have long railed against noncitizen voting, even though the number of cases is microscopically low.

The document doesn’t mention any plans for law enforcement at voting locations, and the email is extensively redacted, so it’s unknown why the list was included. The DHS said that the email came from a “subordinate sharing initial thoughts and opinions with leadership,” in a court filing defending the redactions. Top DHS officials were on the email chain, including Rob Law, the undersecretary for strategy, policy and plans, and Heather Honey, an election conspiracy theorist assigned to monitor elections.

When NPR reached out to DHS about the document, the agency issued a statement saying that people who vote illegally shouldn’t be able to “use a purported lack of knowledge” of English to evade charges. The Voting Rights Act requires election officials to provide materials in another language if at least 5 percent of voting-age citizens consider it their primary language.

Trump administration officials have not been forthright about whether they will deploy federal law enforcement officers to the polls, or whether that would be personnel from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI, or another agency. Earlier this week, FBI Director Kash Patel wouldn’t rule out sending the bureau’s agents to voting locations in November, when asked by Democratic senators.

Last week, the city of Denver along with multiple Latino civil rights groups sued the Trump administration and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to prevent ICE agents from serving immigration warrants at the polls.

“The right to vote, and to do so without fear of intimidation, is fundamental to our democracy and to being an American,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said in a press release. “Stationing ICE agents near polling places is only meant to scare people and suppress votes. We’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent it.”

So far, the Trump administration has not announced any concrete plans for what it plans to do with federal agents for the midterms in November. But judging by the president’s exhortations to his supporters to “cheat like hell,” anything is possible.

The Federal Communications Commission has greenlit Paramount’s petition to allow foreign investors to own at least 49.5 percent of its equity—should the media behemoth successfully acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

The titanic buyout is backed by three sovereign wealth funds tied to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. The FCC acknowledged the national security concerns behind the foreign investment, noting in its decision that the Gulf State wealth funds would not have voting stock.

“We are persuaded by Paramount’s argument that the Foreign Investors therefore will not be able to wield any influence, let alone control, over decisions involving the Licensees,” the commission’s 20-page decision read.

Nonetheless, the commission also carved out allowances for foreign investors to own all of the company’s stock, writing that “it is in the public interest to permit up to 100 percent indirect foreign equity interest of Paramount.”

The combined permitted equity sums include 51.2 percent for four UAE investors, 21.2 percent for two Qatari investors, and 15.1 percent for a singular Saudi investor. Altogether, that’s 87.5 percent of the joint entity.

The FCC’s observed national security concerns did not, however, extend to the three nations’ authoritarian rule, or the consequences of speaking freely under their control.

The prospect of the multibillion-dollar deal was apparently delicious enough for U.S. officials to forget about the late Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who was assassinated by the Saudi government in 2018 for daring to question the kingdom’s authoritarian rule and its war in Yemen, and for advocating for democracy in the Middle East.

A Paramount spokesperson said in a statement that the company appreciated the FCC’s “careful review,” and specified that the “Ellison family and RedBird [Capital Partners] will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100 percent of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights.

“At a time when the media industry faces unprecedented competitive pressure from dominant big tech companies, a combined Paramount-WBD will have the scale and resources necessary to compete, invest, innovate, and deliver premium content to audiences worldwide,” the spokesperson added.

Paramount Skydance came to an agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery earlier this year when it undermined a previous deal between Warner Bros. and Netflix by offering an all-cash bid to buy the company with $31 per share.

But the $110 billion transaction hit a snag in July when a federal judge temporarily blocked the agreement from moving forward, citing antitrust concerns as the two corporations stand to dominate America’s media landscape.

If approved, the merger would fuse two gargantuan film studios, two streaming platforms, and two news organizations under the helm of David Ellison, the millennial son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who’s a close friend of President Donald Trump.

The ongoing pause has put Paramount executives in a bind: The company placed a bet against time, promising Warner Bros. shareholders 25 cents a share each quarter if the deal isn’t wrapped by September 30. That could potentially penalize Paramount by more than $600 million per quarter.