Why is Mister T Pushing Data Centers for the Military?

July 25, 2026

Written by Yiannis Damellos

On a Saturday evening, after two beers and a statin

I picked up this story at Mother Jones, and I said to myself, this is a good story for a lazy Sunday afternoon, so there you go, this is it. The original was written by a good woman, Sophie Hurwitz, a reporter for Mother Jones covering breaking news, politics, and social movements. 

Well, if you live anywhere near a military base, says Sophie, you may soon notice something new popping up in the neighborhood: a privately owned data center moving in right alongside the fences and runways. You know data centers, cause everybody hates them. They are built to serve cloud computing and AI, but they are as dirty as a stinky baby's diaper and as dangerous as Dr. Kevorkian.

When I heard that Trump, a year ago, signed an executive order that directed the Department of Defense to lease federal land to private developers for projects like these, I was, " Whaaaaaaat?" 

This year it got even worse. Cause the lingo coming from the White House was blunt. Not that I am not used to blunt Trump language, but the MF said that data centers are essentially coming, and “You can’t fight it.” Does the dude even know that public opposition has been growing like a virus over the environmental and energy fallout? He probably does, but I'll tell you what: He doesn't give a damn. That's why MAGA loves him. They are all suicidal maniacs; they'd like to see you die next to them from a drone bombardment of horse manure. It's a cultural thing.

Well, going back to those data centers, the backlash is rooted in real concerns. Data centers are voracious power users, and they can carry major pollution footprints, the size of Bigfoot on an ant colony. They are extremely menacing, especially when they’re built at industrial speed on or near places that tend to already be burdened by environmental risk. 

Sophie says, in March, two major private developers—Carlyle Group and CyrusOne—were selected to build hyperscale data centers for cloud and AI computing on federal land in Texas and Utah. Now, the million-dollar question, so far, is where the electricity will come from. And as El Paso Matters reported recently, just the proposed Texas site could require more power than the entire city of El Paso. A voracious site, eager to eat the surrounding environment and drink up the rivers of Babylon, to satisfy its demanding needs.

Now, this is happening while the military continues to frame the push as urgent. (Feels like the bell rings, two corporals are standing at the door saying: "Stick em up, MF. Give me your dough, or I'll feed you to Al Qaeda". That's rude, dude. How about you go to the local bank and get a loan, like every one of us, B...tch?)

They did, apparently. In May, the Pentagon asked for an additional $30 billion for hyperscale data centers, describing plans that would, according to Defense One, “integrate largely untested hardware and software” into military decision-making—systems that can be involved in life-and-death outcomes. They are planning more genocides, and God only knows where they are gonna show up when they are done with Gaza and the West Bank? Tupelo? Damn!!!

Then, you got these Bozos; the Military cadres who say "this is about national security, mum, not convenience". Sophie says, an Army assistant secretary, Marc Andersen, argued in a Fortune piece this June that the country is once again at a turning point—and that the “battlefield” doesn’t just begin on a front line. It starts earlier, in mines, factories, power plants, labs, data centers, and the logistics networks that keep everything moving. Yo, we are building the next generation of ovens for the Jews of the future, but this time they will be honkies and brothers and Asians and Latino residents inside them. We'll die like brownies in the oven, angelic food for the battles of tomorrow.

Critics hear something else too: a story about how national security language can become a catch-all justification for pouring billions into private tech companies. The federal government’s ties to AI vendors have raised eyebrows before, including around xAI. In one legal filing, xAI argued it should be allowed to avoid certain permitting requirements. In that context, Cameron Stanley—described as the Department of War’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer—wrote that Grok’s availability is “a matter of paramount national security.” The filing also claimed the Pentagon had paid Musk’s company at least $200 million for access to its technology. I had to include the Nazi prick in this. He fits like a glove.

Sophie tells me there’s also a political workaround at play. Building data centers on federal land can sidestep some of the public pressure and regulatory scrutiny that might land harder on civilian communities. That's what happens when you surrender your state to Trump. State sucks, I know, bad government too. But in Trump's hands it becomes a recipe for Armageddon. We've heard so many times the federal government piling up doctrines like “sovereign immunity” to limit pollution regulation around military operations—often with consequences for nearby residents. Communities near bases have alleged contamination and called certain areas “sacrifice zones,” including cases like Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where volatile organic compounds, jet fuel, and heavy metals have been reported to affect groundwater. Now, the military wants to spread Flints everywhere.

Yet, lawmakers from across the spectrum are pushing back on the military’s growing public-private partnership with data center developers. Anybody believe they got a chance?

In the latest round of defense budgeting, Republican appropriators rejected multiple data-center-related amendments, including one from Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who proposed a full prohibition on constructing AI data centers on federal lands, including military installations. She later introduced that idea as its own standalone bill. But all those Jesusland supporters don't like her, cause she's a colored woman, a Muslim who, although she cares about you, "she carries explosives in her bag"...

The only data-center-related regulatory language that actually made it into the House Armed Services Committee’s fiscal year 2027 defense authorization version was a different approach—offered by Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fl.). His provision would bar data centers on military installations from using Chinese-built components. The Army said the proposal sets an “unworkable standard” that would push “world-class” commercial partners—and more than $1.3 billion in private capital—away from Army land. And into the hands of the Chinese.

Still, individual proposals like Tlaib’s will continue moving. We don't have the luxury to sit and watch the military take us down one-by-one in our sleep. As Shayna Lewis, Deputy Director of Win Without War, called the issue a warning sign: “Public lands should not be turned into sacrifice zones for the AI arms race.” In her view, the current direction risks forcing local communities to bear energy, water, pollution, and infrastructure costs for systems that can accelerate war-making—and deepen the Pentagon’s deference to Big Tech.

This is your Sunday morning takeaway: the data centers may be private, the land may be federal, and the mission may be national security—but the impacts are likely to land locally, in very real ways. If you say yes to AI Data Centers, you better build a cemetery next to them.