Artificial intelligence continues to be a controversial subject among Democrats, and even among Republicans, many of whom have grown fearful of the construction of AI data centers, citing everything from water usage to electricity consumption to fears about its role in an expanding surveillance state. This article will focus on the latter.
To many, the equation is simple: artificial intelligence is practically synonymous with a surveillance state, since AI companies collect enormous amounts of data, and that same technology is increasingly integrated into government systems. But that equation is far too simplistic, and it misses the point entirely.
A camera is not dangerous because it can see. It's dangerous only when the person controlling it decides to abuse what it sees. The same is true of AI: the technology itself has no politics, no intentions, and no agenda. What determines whether it becomes a tool of oppression or a tool of progress isn't the technology at all, it's who holds the power over it, how narrowly that power is constrained, and whether the public is paying enough attention to notice when it's being misused. AI becoming a force for authoritarian control isn't an inevitability written into the code.
None of this means surveillance concerns aren't worth taking seriously; they are. But as free-market conservatives, our responsibility isn't to regulate the technology out of existence at the first sign of risk, the way Democrats have tried to do with AI in New York, or with data centers more broadly. It's to make sure any regulation that does exist is precise, targeted at actual abuses of power, rather than a blanket attack on the technology itself.
AI itself is neither freedom nor tyranny. It's leverage.
— Rock Chartrand (@RockChartrand) July 16, 2026
In free societies it can dramatically increase human productivity, lower costs, democratize knowledge, and make individuals more independent.
In authoritarian societies it can become the most powerful surveillance and… https://t.co/U8qvXKFsgh
Fortunately for conservatives, and unfortunately for Democrats hoping to justify sweeping new regulation, the private market is already a better safeguard against a surveillance state than government intervention is likely to be. The Fourth Amendment still requires the government to go through proper legal channels to compel private companies to hand over user data, albeit imperfectly, and with real gaps courts are still working out. However, it remains a meaningful check, not a nonexistent one.
On top of that constitutional floor, competition between AI companies adds another layer of protection entirely. A company that develops a reputation for handing over user data too easily, or too readily cooperating with government requests risks losing customers to a competitor that doesn't. As long as the AI market remains genuinely competitive, consumer loyalty gives ordinary people more leverage over these companies than most realize.
As for the regulatory instinct itself, it's worth asking a simple question: why do fears of an AI-driven surveillance state feel so different from the identical fears raised decades ago about the original Silicon Valley tech giants? And why, for many conservatives, has that fear curdled into blanket opposition to data centers specifically? A data center is not a filing cabinet. It doesn't store your personal data as some kind of surveillance vault for bureaucrats to access at will. It simply provides the computing power that runs AI models, a distinction that matters enormously, and one that's gotten lost in the panic.
None of this is to dismiss the underlying concern. A government with unchecked access to AI-powered surveillance tools is a real danger, worth conservatives' full attention and genuine, targeted legislation. But that concern has to be separated from the broader panic that's taken hold. The instinct to treat every data center, every new model, every advance in the technology itself as the enemy, rather than trusting the same free market that has disciplined every past wave of American innovation, is a grave mistake.
The threat was always, and only, the hands it might fall into, and a free market, left to compete, remains one of the best safeguards we have against the wrong hands ever gaining a monopoly on it.