How Trump can fight data center bans

President Donald Trump has more authority to fight state and local data center moratoria than another executive order promising faster permits. He can direct federal agencies to secure computing capacity for national security missions, invoke existing laws to protect essential infrastructure, and challenge states that interfere with authorized federal operations.Those powers offer a way to protect strategically important projects before new restrictions take effect and to fight those that are already in place. The administration needs to put them to work.The distinction matters because the threat facing America’s data center industry is no longer limited to lengthy permitting reviews or difficult negotiations with utilities. Across the country, opponents are seeking outright restrictions on construction, while Democratic victories in Congress and several state governments have increased the prospect of broader moratoria. Trump can veto legislation imposing a nationwide construction freeze. But that alone would leave developers exposed to governors and local officials who can obstruct billions of dollars in investment without sending anything to Washington.The administration’s response should begin with an aggressive effort to establish and protect the federal government’s own computing requirements.Trump’s May 2025 executive order already directs the Energy Department to consider designating AI data centers located at or operated in coordination with DOE facilities as critical defense facilities. That authority recognizes the importance of computing infrastructure to federal missions even when a facility is not physically located on a government installation.The administration can build on that directive by requiring the Pentagon, DOE, and other national security agencies to identify computing capacity essential to their operations. Federal agencies could then secure that capacity through existing procurement and contracting authorities, establishing specific federal interests before state restrictions threaten construction.There is already a foundation for doing so.The Army conditionally selected Carlyle and CyrusOne to negotiate hyperscale developments at Fort Bliss in Texas and Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. At South Carolina’s Savannah River Site, the National Nuclear Security Administration selected Amentum to negotiate a 1-gigawatt data center supported by approximately 2 gigawatts of on-site generation.These arrangements demonstrate how federal missions and private development can be brought together. They also create opportunities to establish projects whose legal significance extends beyond ordinary commercial construction.That matters because federal courts have already recognized limits on state interference with authorized government operations.In 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in GEO Group v. Newsom that California could not use its prohibition on private detention facilities to override Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s lawful decision to rely on private contractors.The broader principle is consequential for data center development. When Congress authorizes a federal mission, a state cannot necessarily dictate how the government uses private contractors to perform it.A state moratorium interfering with computing capacity specifically required for an authorized defense or intelligence operation could therefore face a federal challenge. By establishing those requirements in advance, the administration would give the Justice Department something far more substantial to defend than a general declaration that artificial intelligence is important.The Defense Production Act offers another mechanism, and the Trump administration has already demonstrated its potential.In March, the Energy Department ordered Sable Offshore to restart a California oil pipeline under federal allocation authority. California officials resisted, but a federal judge ruled in August that the state’s parks department could not prevent the company from complying with the order.The decision remains under appeal, but it demonstrates how an enforceable federal order directed at privately owned infrastructure can prevail over conflicting state action.That precedent warrants examination wherever a moratorium obstructs infrastructure required for a documented federal mission. The administration could also use the act to prioritize qualifying contracts for scarce electrical equipment and support domestic manufacturing capacity.Time is becoming a factor. The act’s principal authorities expire Dec. 11 unless Congress renews them, although existing law preserves performance of valid commitments entered before expiration.Federal telecommunications law provides another avenue for challenging certain restrictions without relying on an emergency declaration.Section 253 of the Communications Act prohibits state and local measures that effectively block covered telecommunications services. The Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 Moratoria Order established protections against restrictions on telecommunications deployment, and the 9th Circuit upheld that order in 2020.If a broadly written data center ban also blocks qualifying telecommunications facilities, a provider could challenge its application under existing federal law. That protection would not automatically extend to an ordinary AI computing campus, but states cannot evade telecommunications law simply by applying a broader label to the facilities being restricted.Federal energy law presents similar opportunities when the obstruction targets supporting infrastructure. Under Section 216 of the Federal Power Act, the Energy Department can designate national-interest transmission corridors, allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit qualifying interstate lines despite certain state refusals. Federal authorization of interstate natural gas pipelines can likewise override conflicting restrictions on those facilities.Those authorities do not confer blanket approval of the data center itself. They prevent states from assuming that every component of a development falls exclusively within their control.The administration also needs to confront executive moratoria that may exceed a governor’s authority under state law.Texas provides an immediate example. In September, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) directed state agencies to halt data center permitting pending electricity and water audits. Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa (D-TX) has promised a broader moratorium until state lawmakers enact new protections, although Republicans retained control of the state Senate.A prolonged freeze imposed through agency directives would raise questions about statutory authority and compliance with existing permitting obligations. Developers could challenge unlawful agency actions in state court, while federal regulators could examine compliance with applicable federal permitting requirements.Other states considering similar restrictions would face the same fundamental question: whether a governor can suspend the operation of permitting laws without obtaining authority from the legislature.Trump’s existing national energy emergency provides a framework for coordinating these responses. The White House should direct federal agencies to identify threatened projects, document federal computing requirements, and determine which statutes provide grounds for intervention before restrictions become entrenched.The Justice Department should be prepared to defend qualifying federal operations, while the FCC and energy regulators enforce the specific protections Congress has already established.That strategy would not invalidate every lawful zoning restriction, nor does it need to. Its purpose would be to prevent states from exercising authority they do not possess and to protect infrastructure and federal operations that existing law places beyond certain forms of state interference.REPUBLICANS LOST THE AI ARGUMENT IN 2026. WE MUST FIX IT BEFORE 2028America’s data center industry is entering a period when political opposition may become as consequential as electricity availability or construction costs. The federal government cannot resolve every local dispute, but it has considerable authority to defend projects that serve the national interest.Trump does not need another Congress to give him those powers. He needs to order his administration to use them.Colton Overcash is the founder of Vertex Strategies, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based government relations and strategic advisory firm with a presence in Washington. A regular commentator on data center development and technology policy, he previously held two presidential appointments at the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration and served as a congressional staffer.