Public-Land ‘Hijacking’ or Strategic Infrastructure? Merkley Challenges Federal AI Push

Oregon — U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley joined two Senate colleagues in demanding information about proposed data centers on federal public lands, challenging the Interior Department’s transparency as the Trump administration promotes computing infrastructure as a national economic and security priority.

In an October 29 announcement, Merkley, D-Ore., joined Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., in questioning Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s meetings with developers and investors. Their letter, reproduced on Padilla’s website, asks the department to halt efforts to site data centers on public lands and respond by November 16. The senators cited concerns about water supplies, electricity costs, tribal consultation and access for recreation and grazing.

The inquiry concerns where and under what conditions data centers should be built. The facilities house servers, storage and networking equipment that support websites, email, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. The Congressional Research Service describes access to advanced, secure computing infrastructure as an issue affecting U.S. economic competitiveness and national security.

Become a Paid Subscriber for Exclusive Content Access

The senators’ announcement characterized the administration’s actions as “hijacking” public lands. However, the September reporting cited in their letter described applications largely in early stages of review, rather than completed land transfers or approved construction.

The Washington Sun reported proposals covering at least 17,600 acres across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming, including roads, pipelines and other supporting infrastructure. An update to that report said Valar Atomics had abandoned a proposed 10,200-acre Utah site after considering it. Those qualifications limit what the acreage figure establishes about eventual development.

Burgum’s engagement with industry also follows an explicit administration directive. President Donald Trump’s July 2025 executive order instructed Interior and Energy officials to consult industry and offer appropriate authorizations for federal sites, consistent with applicable law. It also sought faster environmental reviews and permitting. The meetings cited by the senators do not, by themselves, establish improper influence or preferential treatment.

Federal support for domestic AI infrastructure spans administrations, although the policies differ. President Joe Biden’s January 2025 executive order called for leasing selected federal sites for AI facilities and clean energy development. It identified military capabilities, intelligence analysis, cybersecurity and reduced dependence on foreign computing infrastructure as national security considerations. Trump revoked that order when issuing his own framework in July.

The Energy Department separately identified 16 potential federal sites in April 2025. It said existing energy infrastructure and proximity to national research facilities could support development and collaboration on computing hardware and power systems. That initiative involves DOE properties and should be distinguished from the Interior-managed lands targeted by the senators’ inquiry.

Expansion nevertheless presents substantial electricity challenges. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report published in June 2026 projects that data centers could consume 11.8% of U.S. electricity by 2030, with scenarios ranging from 9.5% to 15.3%. Those figures are projections dependent on equipment shipments, operating assumptions and cooling performance.

Who pays for that growth is a separate policy question. Oregon regulators have approved a new rate structure for large Portland General Electric customers under the state’s POWER Act. The structure assigns costs associated with serving data centers to those customers and includes protections against infrastructure going unused. Regulators also approved a surcharge for facilities with at least 100 megawatts of allocated capacity.

Water impacts likewise require project-specific information. Energy Department guidance explains that consumption at facilities using cooling towers depends on heat loads, equipment efficiency and operating conditions. Climate and cooling practices can substantially affect demand, making a facility’s design and water source essential to evaluating its local effects.

In the September report, a Bureau of Land Management spokesperson said proposals would undergo environmental review to identify and address potential impacts. The senators argue that the department has provided insufficient information and consultation. Resolving that dispute will require details about individual applications, agency decisions and opportunities for public participation.