Over the past year, the Trump administration’s efforts to position the United States as a global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) have drawn increasing left-wing criticism. And that’s just the way the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) likes it. CCP-linked actors have aggressively amplified anti-data center voices in America, even as Beijing generously subsidizes China’s own AI rollout and data center construction.
Data centers, which power AI development and Large Language Models (LLMs), are a critically important component of America’s technological arsenal amid an escalating AI arms race with China. Beijing doubtless understands America’s advantages in the current AI race. It also knows slowing American AI development can help China to close the gap and narrow America’s lead.
Chinese entities have a long history of collaborating with far-left causes, and they have again found common ground in opposing the construction of data centers. They are pushing mutually reinforcing messages that criticize a host of alleged environmental and ethical concerns as reasons to disempower American growth in a critical economic and competitive sector. Officials at the federal, state, and local levels should recognize this noxious alliance as they field criticism of data centers.
>>> Meta Abandons Its AI-Generating Tool, but Public-Safety Guardrails Are Needed
In April, two Chinese academics with ties to the Chinese government, invited to the Capitol by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), spoke about the need for “safe” approaches to AI, in conjunction with Sen. Sanders’ general call to stall American data center construction amid concerns that AI constitutes an “existential threat.” The scholars in question, Zeng Yi and Xue Lan, are longtime representatives—either directly or informally—of CCP institutions. Their call for AI restraint in Washington, while Beijing plows full speed ahead with its own AI rollout, cannot help but raise questions about their sincerity.
Chinese information warfare takes more subtle forms as well. A study released by the Bitcoin Policy Institute in May revealed how far-left financial interests tied to the CCP have financed anti-data-center campaigns under the guise of environmental preservation. Repeated criticisms have come from entities such as Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, a Malthusian, left-wing group funded by Neville Roy Singham. A dyed-in-the-wool Marxist and billionaire, Singham, the husband of Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, is based in Shanghai with extensive documented ties to the CCP.
In other cases, what may seem like run-of-the-mill leftist narratives have clear links stretching back to China. In July, the New York Times reported that Chinese actors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to create comic strips depicting wealthy data center overlords supposedly stealing from local residents and imposing higher prices on consumer goods and services. The Chinese creators tried to make the cartoons appear as if a Maryland news outlet had published them.
CCP misinformation operations have long targeted sub-national audiences at the state or even local levels to spread harmful narratives discouraging American growth and production. In response, House Republicans have rightfully launched queries into potential foreign sources of anti-data center opposition. But further action at both the local and national levels is necessary. State-level policymakers must learn to distinguish between organic political debate for or against data centers, and those narratives that originate in or are fueled by Beijing and other adversarial capitals.
>>> Slowing Data Center Construction Signals the Need for Pro-Growth Reforms
The debates raging over AI data centers represent a new horizon for the CCP to target state- and local-level civic society and government, promoting pro-China and anti-America narratives by finding vulnerable or nefarious co-conspirators within local society.
The implications of the AI race are hard to overstate, impacting everything from economic growth to job creation to cybersecurity. If America falls behind China in the AI race, and the Chinese AI tech stack begins proliferating worldwide, it faces the real possibility that not only neutral countries, but allies and partners, will fall deeper into China’s techno-economic orbit.
While Beijing’s propaganda mechanisms won’t derail the Trump administration’s laudable efforts to retain American technological dominance, Chinese narrative warfare can make the process more costly than necessary, at both the local and national levels.
It’s time for policymakers at all levels of leadership to cultivate awareness and craft policies to counteract Chinese anti-American tech narratives while exposing CCP efforts to boost or co-opt destructive far-left causes for their own purposes.
This piece originally appeared in The National Interest
Facts Only
* The Trump administration is working to position the United States as a global leader in artificial intelligence.
* China subsidizes its own AI rollout and data center construction.
* Zeng Yi and Xue Lan, academics with ties to Chinese government institutions, spoke at the U.S. Capitol in April.
* Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) invited Zeng Yi and Xue Lan to the Capitol.
* The Bitcoin Policy Institute released a study in May regarding the financing of anti-data-center campaigns.
* Neville Roy Singham, a Shanghai-based billionaire, funds the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.
* Jodie Evans is the co-founder of Code Pink and the wife of Neville Roy Singham.
* The New York Times reported in July that Chinese actors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to create comic strips targeting Maryland residents.
* House Republicans have initiated queries into the foreign sources of opposition to data center construction.
Executive Summary
The United States is currently engaged in a technological competition with China to achieve dominance in artificial intelligence. While the U.S. government seeks to expand its AI infrastructure through data center construction, these efforts face internal opposition based on environmental and ethical concerns. There are indications that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is leveraging these internal American divisions to slow U.S. development while simultaneously accelerating its own domestic AI capabilities.
Evidence suggests a multi-pronged approach by Chinese actors to influence U.S. policy, ranging from academic testimonials at the Capitol to the funding of far-left activist groups and the creation of AI-generated misinformation campaigns targeting local populations. While some opposition to data centers stems from organic domestic debate, the intersection of foreign interests and local activism creates a complex security challenge. The outcome of this race is viewed as critical to future economic growth, cybersecurity, and the global proliferation of technological standards.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that geopolitical competition has evolved into "narrative warfare," where adversaries do not just compete on technology, but actively weaponize a target nation's internal ideological fissures to sabotage its strategic capabilities. It argues that the CCP is utilizing a "pincer movement"—funding far-left environmentalism and leveraging high-level political invitations—to create a domestic moratorium on the very infrastructure required for AI leadership.
The narrative relies heavily on the "adversarial alignment" pattern, where the actions of domestic political actors (like Sen. Sanders or environmental groups) are framed not as independent policy preferences, but as unwitting or intentional extensions of a foreign adversary's will. By linking "far-left" causes directly to CCP funding, the argument shifts the debate from the merits of environmental preservation to a matter of national security and loyalty.
Patterns detected: ARC-0021 False Framing (Forced Binary)
The driving paradigm is one of Zero-Sum Realism. It assumes that any domestic friction slowing U.S. growth is a net win for China, thereby framing internal democratic dissent as a strategic vulnerability. This echoes Cold War-era tropes of "foreign agents" influencing domestic movements to weaken the state from within. The implication is a potential narrowing of "acceptable" political discourse; if legitimate environmental concerns are categorized as "foreign influence operations," the space for organic civic debate shrinks.
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve "associative guilt": linking a mainstream political figure to a foreign agent to discredit the figure's entire platform. The content follows this pattern by juxtaposing Sanders' invitation of academics with Beijing's AI ambitions.
Bridge Questions:
1. How can policymakers distinguish between foreign-funded influence and organic grassroots opposition to industrial expansion?
2. Does the framing of AI as an "arms race" inherently justify the dismissal of ethical or environmental guardrails?
3. What evidence exists to show that slowing U.S. data center growth materially benefits China's own AI trajectory?