Congress

Data center moratorium gains traction among Hill progressives

Published

6 months ago

March 11, 2026

A proposal to enact a moratorium on new data centers across the country is gaining traction among progressives on Capitol Hill.

Last year hundreds of advocacy groups, led by Food and Water Watch, sent House and Senate lawmakers are letter calling for a “National Data Center Moratorium Now!” They cited energy, water and other environmental concerns. But only Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared to take them up on the plan.

Now, even though the idea remains unpopular with members of both parties, it’s gaining currency among lawmakers like former Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). Sanders said he’s preparing legislation.

“A few months ago, when I proposed a moratorium on AI data centers, it was perceived as a radical, fringe and Luddite idea. Well, not anymore,” said Sanders.

Supporters frame the moratorium as a temporary pause that would allow regulators to catch up with the breakneck pace of development. Not only are companies looking to build several thousand data centers around the country, they’re also working on securing the energy and water necessary to keep them running.

“The problem with a lot of these technologies is that once they’re out of the box, it’s difficult to pull them back in,” said Jayapal. “It is not too soon to stop this.”

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said, “This doesn’t mean we’re anti-innovation. We just need time to make sure we can legislate on behalf of our constituents, because tech companies are moving a million miles an hour.”

But other Democrats from across the ideological spectrum have rejected the idea of a moratorium. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) publicly rebuked Sanders, echoing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s warning that a moratorium would amount to waving a “surrender flag” to China. “I refuse to help hand the lead in AI to China,” Fetterman wrote on X.

Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill are taking cues from state and local leaders, some of whom have also moved to support a data center moratorium.

One proposal in New York would impose a three-year moratorium on proposed facilities that require too much energy. And in Denver, Mayor Mike Johnston is finalizing a plan that would give the city a year to review how data centers might affect utility bills and update zoning rules.

But even though data centers are causing a buzz, opposition to them is far from universal. A POLITICO Poll, conducted in January by London-based firm Public First, found that half of voters surveyed support building more data centers in the U.S., compared with 17 percent who oppose them. Support fell to roughly 36 percent if the data center was being built within three miles of where people respondents live.

The White House, which has been bullish on artificial intelligence helping bolster the unsteady economy, has been trying to get ahead of data center concerns by pushing companies to source their own energy.

And while progressives see the data center moratorium as siding with concerned communities, some Republicans say it reminds them of the Green New Deal, casting the left as hostile to growth, innovation and national competitiveness.

“It’s Green New Deal politics all over again, and it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of,” said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), whose state is experiencing a data center boom. “Let’s stop while everybody else surpasses us.”

Not all Republicans are as dismissive. House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) refrained from being overly critical of Sanders’ push, citing two proposed data centers in his district.

“I understand that local communities need to have plans and understand how more data centers would work in their communities,” Guthrie said. “But we have to win the AI war. And so I would be very reluctant to do a federal ban on data centers that would set us behind.”

James Fishback, a far-right candidate for Florida governor, has criticized national Republicans for prioritizing major tech firms over communities absorbing the impacts of rapid development.

“They’re not building an AI data center next door to Mar-a-Lago,” Fishback said. “They’re building AI data centers in our agricultural communities like Loxahatchee and Fort Meade, and I’m running for governor to stop that.”

Similarly, progressive Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said, “Why are we supporting data centers that drive up energy, electric and water costs for everybody, and pretty much only benefit AI developers? We need to get a handle on it.”

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

5 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

7 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

8 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.