In November 2025, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott boasted of Google’s $40 billion investment to help make the state “the epicenter of AI development.” Less than a year later, he suspended all permits sought by data centers, saying that none of the projects would move forward until they “pay their own way.” Abbott has not abandoned the AI race, but his shift reveals a striking dynamic in the 2026 governor’s races. 

Due to the physical and local nature of data centers, they have become a point of contention for both Democrats and Republicans. Data centers have prompted major backlash from voters, with rising utility bills and a concern over water supplies at the center of these discussions. 

In reviewing gubernatorial candidates across 36 states, we found a surprisingly bipartisan consensus that data centers should “pay their own way,” covering the cost of new energy infrastructure instead of passing it on to residential ratepayers. But candidates diverge on what comes next. Some would like to halt new construction, while others would keep building with additional conditions attached.

Of the major-party gubernatorial nominees we examined, 92 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans support either a moratorium or new conditions on data center development. This is a rare point of bipartisan agreement. Support for moratoriums also marks a notable break from President Trump, who has called data centers “LIQUID GOLD” and pushed for more buildout. In several races, opponents find themselves on the same side. In New Hampshire, both Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) and Cinde Warmington (D) have expressed their support for a data center moratorium. Oregon’s Gov. Tina Kotek (D) and state Sen. Christine Drazan (R) have done the same. In Wisconsin, candidate Tom Tiffany (R) says the state should be “America’s dairyland, not America’s data land,” while opposing candidate David Crowley (D) recently backed a statewide pause on the construction of data centers. 

Beneath this consensus, though, party priorities are different. Democrats are more likely to ask for clean-energy requirements and union labor. Republicans place greater emphasis on data centers generating their own power, protecting the country’s farmland, and maintaining our technological competitiveness.

On AI itself, the divide is sharper. Forty-four percent of Democratic nominees back broad state AI rules or safety laws, compared to only 8 percent of Republican nominees. Meanwhile, a third of Republican nominees promote the expansion of AI in different sectors without proposing broad regulation of it, an approach not embraced by any Democratic nominee. Even candidates who support greater regulation are often thin on commitments. In California, which has one of the country’s most developed AI frameworks, Xavier Becerra (D) and Steve Hilton (R) both say AI needs more regulation but have declined to commit to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s newly proposed safeguards. However, many nominees on both sides of the aisle favor narrower protections, particularly against deepfakes and harmful uses of chatbots, especially for children. 

An emerging fault line is which level of government should write the rules for AI. In 2025, the House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with a provision barring states from enforcing their own AI laws for a decade. A handful of Republican House members now running for governor voted for the broader bill containing that provision. But 17 Republican governors, including four on this year’s ballot, urged Congress to drop it, and the Senate later removed the moratorium provision from the final bill. This debate is far from settled. States have kept legislating, introducing more than 1,500 AI bills this year, while Congress has yet to advance a national framework. The next class of governors will take office facing an anxious public, enormously complicated policy questions, and no clear signal from Washington about how much room states will have to act.

The 2026 gubernatorial races suggest that AI and the infrastructure powering it are becoming two distinct political debates. On AI, the parties remain divided over the proper role of government. On data centers, they increasingly share a starting point where technological progress cannot come at the expense of the communities expected to power it. “Pay your own way” is no longer a talking point; it is the floor from which negotiations will take place.

Governors and data center companies will need to earn buy-in from local communities, with enforceable commitments on electricity rates, water use, and local benefits. They will also need a new approach to the broader public anxiety around AI itself, including exploring additional transparency and incident-reporting requirements that have passed in California, New York, and Illinois. The governors who succeed will be the ones who treat public trust as infrastructure, something to be built before anything else can.