During the second term of the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been actively redefining its limitations in serving the American public.
The agency, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has focused on the standards it cannot set, the deadlines it cannot meet, the public it cannot engage, the experts it cannot employ, and the grants it cannot provide. This approach has been characterized as a focus on what the EPA cannot do for the general public, while enabling benefits for a select group of polluters.
This is most evident in the EPA’s stance that it cannot shield the public from increasing pollution driven by the rapid establishment of AI-powered data centers, which are heavily reliant on coal, gas, and diesel. Administrator Zeldin has prioritized reducing protections for infrastructure supporting AI as a central part of the agency’s agenda.
Such a focus on limitations is seen as a stark departure from the EPA’s mission, carrying significant consequences.
At the same time as the EPA is stepping back from its role in public protection, a wave of new fossil fuel power plants is emerging, alongside continued reliance on existing gas and coal facilities.
The health and environmental impacts are profound: these polluting sources are being freed from basic pollution controls and hidden from public scrutiny. If the EPA continues on this path, today’s pollution levels will persist into the future.
Power sector overview
Across the nation, technology companies are searching for substantial electricity supplies to power their energy-intensive data centers, which consume as much electricity as entire cities. This demand is driving the development of new power generation sources.
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar, combined with energy storage, are the fastest and most cost-effective options for development. Ideally, they would be the primary choice.
However, the Trump administration is reportedly obstructing their deployment and increasing their costs, while urging companies to rely on fossil fuels. Consequently, although renewables and storage are being integrated, it is not at the scale that is possible or necessary. Instead, there is a significant increase in new gas projects, both on the grid and beyond. Moreover, demand for gas plants is so high, and oversight so weak, that inefficient, high-emission alternatives are being pursued.
This reduction in pollution standards is a misguided sacrifice of public interest.
The core issue is not the cost of power but its rapid availability, which tech companies highly prioritize. If fossil fuel plants were held accountable for their emissions, these companies would pay for pollution controls and likely choose less gas dependency. For the Trump administration, this creates a dilemma.
The issue is not about AI or Big Tech—it is about fossil fuels. Specifically, it is about making fossil fuels dominate over renewable resources, benefiting special-interest polluters and promoting an anti-renewable agenda.
How the Trump EPA facilitates pollution from data center power plants
Here are some ways the EPA is stepping back from its role in holding tech companies accountable for the pollution from their fossil-fueled data centers. These examples are not exhaustive.
Rolling back regulations. Significant regulatory reductions include:
Introducing new loopholes, delays, and exemptions. When unable to completely eliminate regulations, the EPA has introduced alternative approaches to achieve similar outcomes, such as:
Excluding public involvement. Simultaneously with reducing regulations and polluter oversight, the EPA is making it more difficult for the public to access information and participate by:
This extensive range of actions is just a portion of what the EPA is doing to further enable polluting data center infrastructure, along with other polluting sectors. Moreover, EPA’s actions are part of a larger pro-polluter, anti-accountability agenda.
The long-term impact of these regulatory rollbacks
Ideally, the expansion of data centers would prioritize public interest, involve strategic planning, uphold rigorous standards, ensure transparency, and commit to accountability—yet even then, navigating these challenges would be difficult.
Currently, the situation is far from ideal. In fact, the Trump administration is steering toward the worst possible outcome in each of these areas.
Consequently, communities nationwide are facing preventable harms and costs, both now and in the future. This unchecked, fossil-reliant data center expansion threatens to leave the nation with severe consequences.
Such waste is disgraceful.
There is another aspect to consider. Even in the best-case scenario, these efforts do not address the societal risks and opportunities associated with AI development, which should be a priority for both the nation and the world. Due to the Trump administration’s actions, resources and focus are being diverted to manage this avoidable crisis instead.
The essential solution is for the public to continue to challenge these developments. This includes opposing detrimental and unjust regulatory proposals, pushing back against supportive lawmakers, and resisting reckless projects.
The goal is to demand an EPA that serves the American people and fulfills its mission.
