Want To Build A Data Center? Fund The Journalists Who Will Hold It Accountable

This article first appeared in Poynter on Sept. 17, 2026.

Communities and state governments that are inclined to host new data centers are now realizing that (thanks to the moratorium movement) they possess something surprising: serious leverage. They can and should ask for benefits from AI companies that will make the project worthwhile.

In July, the Trump administration took an action that should prompt a partial rethink of what exactly communities are asking for. The administration proposed a rule that would eliminate federal requirements that states provide public notice and solicit comments on certain air pollution permits, including some permits for data centers. (The Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator said a priority for the agency was to “make the United States the artificial intelligence capital of the world.”)

This reminds us that in addition to the core demands about electricity, pollution and water, community benefit agreements or state-enforced rules should guarantee that residents get something just as precious — accurate information, not just in the first few months but forever.

Communities that opt for negotiation rather than a moratorium should ask not only for better data disclosure but also for something that would make those efforts far more meaningful and durable: a couple of independent local reporters to follow up on all of the commitments that are being made.

In many places, local news is not currently resourced well enough to hold these companies and deals accountable. Although the collapse of local news has hurt communities of all sorts, it appears that areas with data centers are particularly starved of good local reporting. Stunningly, there are 71 data centers in counties with fewer than one local journalist equivalent per 100,000 people, according to an analysis by Rebuild Local News. The already-lousy national average is 7.8 local journalist equivalents per 100,000 people now, down from 40 in 2002.

How could this be done without allowing the AI companies — the providers of the financial support — to influence the coverage? Simple. The data centers would make one-time lump-sum donations to local community foundations or Press Forward locals to create permanent endowments. The endowment would fund the reporter, so no further payments would be necessary from AI companies — and they would have no stick to hold over news outlets. The foundations would decide which local news outlets would receive the reporters. The editors at that outlet would decide the stories. Getting the money upfront also would safeguard the investment in case the AI company, er, changes its mind or goes out of business.

Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia and other states have issued executive orders requiring information disclosure. Sometimes local governments may serve as watchdogs, but they may decline to cause trouble with a major employer, especially if the company supports the political campaigns of local officials. You need independent watchdogs.

There’s plenty of evidence that local news helps make government more efficient. Less well known is that it also makes companies behave better. For instance, one study found that after local newspapers closed, violations by local facilities increased 1.1% and penalties increased 15.2%.

A $4 million donation per data center would be enough to create an endowment for two permanent local journalists. One could cover the data centers directly and the other could help cover the community in general. Perhaps they’d do stories like the one in the Gothamist this week about how a data center in Secaucus, New Jersey, spilled several thousand gallons of diesel fuel into the meadowlands.

That second slot is important because AI faces a real garbage-in, garbage-out problem when it comes to local information. If there’s no good local reporting, what AI produces in response to local queries will be more likely to be false or misleading.

Indeed, one could argue that it’s very much in the long-term financial interest of the AI companies to strengthen local news. It will improve the quality of their local services.

Some of this may sound a bit punitive, like it’s all about catching them in wrongdoing. But tech companies complain that the data center backlash is being fueled by misinformation, driven, ironically, by social media. If that’s the case, having real reporters may be their best shot at having accurate, nuanced information drive the local debates.

There is plenty of precedent for this kind of move. When nonprofit hospitals decided they wanted to become for-profit, regulators required that they set up foundations that would forever fund health care.

When cable companies were first bidding for contracts to tear up streets and lay wire, they offered communities public access channels ostensibly to improve the quality of information.

Some communities may decide to block data centers entirely. For those that decide to negotiate terms, community members should consider adding this idea to the wish list. It will make it more likely that the other promises are kept and improve the civic health of the community in general.