Democratic and Republican lawmakers have joined in a rare bipartisan effort to oppose the Pentagon’s plan to open military land to private companies for the construction of AI data centers.

The pushback centers on concerns that data center facilities draw large amounts of power and water from grids and reservoirs, placing added strain on the communities that rely on that infrastructure. That makes the debate bigger than a land-use fight inside Washington: it has become a test of how the federal government weighs national security, local utility demand, and the pace of AI infrastructure buildout.

Despite the scrutiny, the Army is already moving ahead with the first two deals under the plan. The Air Force is also reportedly seeking unused land at many of its installations.

What does Congress want from the Trump administration?

Congress is pursuing several avenues in opposition to the Pentagon’s plan to place data centers on federal land, including amendments, studies, briefings, and, in at least one case, an outright ban.

Asked by reporters whether data center facilities belong on military installations, Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat and ranking member of the House Armed Services Readiness subcommittee, was noncommittal, saying, “may be yes, may be no.” According to reports, his amendment was voted down in committee.

The objections cut across party lines. Republican lawmakers Ken Calvert and Cory Mills also raised concerns in an effort to slow the project before any construction begins.

Defense Appropriations subcommittee chair Calvert secured a provision requiring the Defense Department to first explain to Congress how each project would affect nearby communities.

Florida Republican Cory Mills introduced a separate amendment to block the use of any components the Pentagon has identified as a national security risk. That proposal already passed the House this week.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduced her No AI Data Centers on Federal Lands Act on July 23. The bill would permanently ban the construction and retroactive removal of any large AI data centers on government land, including military bases.

Tlaib said her district does not want to host those facilities because of “noise, light, air, and water pollution” as well as rising energy costs.

Who wants to build data centers on federal land?

Two proposed sites have already been conditionally awarded, each valued at nearly $2 billion, according to the Financial Times. Carlyle received approval to build on roughly 1,384 acres at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. CyrusOne, a data center operator owned by funds from KKR and BlackRock, also received approval for 1,201 acres at Utah’s Dugway Proving Ground.

The controversy is not limited to military data centers. Communities across the country have delayed or canceled nearly $156 billion in data center projects, according to a tally from Data Center Watch.

Politico also backed Cryptopolitan’s earlier reporting on the Fort Bliss site, including concerns about how consumer power bills have climbed after AI data center buildouts.

The Army calls it a “federal land penalty”

The Army is pushing back. In a statement to Federal News Network, the service said Mills’ components rule would create an “unworkable standard” and a “federal land penalty” because it would impose requirements on on-base builders that off-base developers do not face. The Army said that could drive away “world-class commercial partners” and more than $1.3 billion in private capital.

Senior Republicans have defended the effort. House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers said the restrictions would “impede the Army’s ongoing negotiations,” while Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden said blocking base projects would simply push data centers onto tillable farmland.

Army officials have said they will use net-zero water plans and power that will stay off the local grid. However, several Democrats say they still have not received a full briefing on how those promises would be enforced, leaving Congress to press for more detail before the first projects move too far ahead.