Vance Slams H-1B Visas As Trump Scrutinizes Abuses In Legal Immigration
'On average, H-1B workers earn 16 percent less than comparable natives,' one paper found.'On average, H-1B workers earn 16 percent less than comparable natives,' one paper found.Glenn Beck's message to conservatives who TRULY want to defeat the left
Jeremy Boreing has a new series out on Amazon called "The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin," which is a live-action historical fantasy series adapted from the novels by Stephen R. Lawhead.
“Almost everything on television now is about witchcraft and, you know, all of this crap. Not much is about Christianity. So I started watching this, and it starts with pagan gods and everything else, and I’m not going to give anything away, but it doesn’t last with the pagan gods very long,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.
“And nowhere on television are you getting that kind of message in a good-quality series,” he says.
Glenn also notes that he’s “not getting anything" for promoting the series.
“It is so controversial in our circle of friends. You know, it’s ridiculous,” he says.
"Can we stop all this, please? Can we please stop? I don’t consider anyone a competitor. And I don’t know why everybody is considering everyone else a competitor. We’re not competitors.”
“You know who we’re competing against? Satan. We’re competing against evil. We’re competing against Marxism. We’re competing against apathy. We’re not competing against each other,” he continues.
“Why we don't all promote one another, why we don't all help each other, why we all don’t celebrate everybody’s victories when they have it is beyond me. Here is a TV series, and the downside is I don’t think another season’s going to be made unless this is wildly popular, and I think it could be if people will search it out,” he adds.
Glenn calls the show “as good as anything [he has] seen in that genre.”
“And everybody should say something about it. It’s a victory. That was beautiful and well done. It’s one of the best things I’ve seen our side produce,” he adds.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
James Talarico shamelessly politicizes Amazon worker's tragic death to attack capitalism
The Democrat candidate for one of two U.S. Senate seats for Texas was seemingly caught spreading misinformation about an emergency incident at an Amazon warehouse.
James Talarico was campaigning at a church when he referred to an incident at an Amazon warehouse in which an employee died.
'Lying isn’t very Christian. And that’s what you’re doing here because that’s not what happened.'
He posted a video of his comments to social media on Sunday to spread the message against corporate greed.
"An Amazon worker died in one of Amazon's warehouses. And as he lay dying, management told the other workers: 'Turn around. Don't look. Get back to work.' Get back to work? That was a human being. That was a child of God," Talarico claimed.
"Sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed," he added.
An Amazon employee did die after collapsing at an Oregon facility in April in Troutdale, Oregon, and that story has been used by Democrats and other activists to attack capitalism, though Amazon has specifically denied allegations about it.
Amazon responded to a Blaze News request for comment by directing to a previous statement about the incident, denying the "misinformation" being spread online.
"Sadly, one of our teammates collapsed during his shift from what we now understand as a pre-existing medical issue. When our onsite team was notified, three CPR certified team members, including two from our on-site safety team, provided CPR and deployed an automated defibrillator until emergency medical services (EMS) arrived shortly after."
The statement went on to say that the area was cordoned off while the company's safety teams and EMS cared for the worker. Unfortunately, the employee passed away.
And in contrast to criticism casting Amazon as cold and heartless in its response, the company outlined steps taken to protect the man's privacy and to care for the other workers at the warehouse.
"Shortly after this event occurred, employees were sent home with pay for the rest of the day," they added. "When we resumed operations the following day, any employee who requested time off was given that time, and onsite grief counselors were provided to anybody who chose to come to work and needed them."
Many online found Talarico's politicization of the man's death to be inappropriate and crass, especially as the Democrat regularly cites Christianity in his campaign.
"Lying isn’t very Christian. And that’s what you’re doing here because that’s not what happened," said one critic.
RELATED: James Talarico shamelessly panders on Karmelo Anthony verdict — on NY-based radio show
"Total LIE about the actual events. Do you EVER tell the truth??" said another.
"You don’t turn someone’s distress into a sideshow Talarico," responded one detractor. "You allow medical personnel and others qualified to handle the situation and ask everyone else to leave the scene. And it’s also exactly what the first responders tell you too. And another reason you are unfit to serve in our senate."
Amazon has been hounded by critics pointing out that its workers are twice as likely to be injured as non-Amazon workers. Another report found that Amazon warehouses had 30% more injuries than the industry average in 2023.
The company responded to the criticism by noting Amazon had invested $2.5 billion in increased safety standards.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Big Tech gets the network. You get the bill.
The Federal Communications Commission’s latest broadband report makes two things clear: America has made real progress, but the rural job is far from finished.
The number of Americans lacking access to fixed terrestrial broadband with download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps fell roughly 23% in one year, while rural gaps shrank more than 44% over two years. Prices for the mid-tier plans most households buy have also fallen in real terms.
The path is simple: Make the biggest users and beneficiaries of Universal Service Fund-supported networks help pay, without raising prices for consumers.
Yet the FCC still says deployment is not “reasonable and timely” for all Americans, especially in rural areas and tribal lands. For many families, broadband is now one of the rare essential services that is both faster and more affordable than it was a few years ago.
That’s why the Universal Service Fund remains indispensable. It connects an estimated 130 million Americans each year, supporting low-income and rural households, schools, libraries, students, and health care providers. At roughly $8.5 billion annually, USF underwrites a crucial piece of America’s digital infrastructure. It also supports the infrastructure beneath an internet economy measured in the trillions of dollars.
The problem is how we pay for it. Consumers bear a monthly surcharge on legacy voice services, while the largest internet platforms, which depend on broadband to generate enormous revenues, contribute nothing.
Congress knows the system needs reform. In 2023, Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) launched a bipartisan Universal Service Fund Working Group. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) now shares leadership with Luján, joined by Reps. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), and the working group has heard from hundreds of stakeholders. Its assignment is straightforward: preserve a program that works while replacing a financing mechanism that does not.
Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Netflix, and TikTok all depend on broadband networks to reach Americans. Each USF-connected household generates an estimated $3,000 annually in revenue for these companies, which collectively consume roughly two-thirds of U.S. broadband capacity. Data-center expansion will only increase that traffic. As more data centers come online to support AI, cloud computing, streaming, and other digital services, the demands placed on those networks will only grow.
Broadband providers, meanwhile, must keep investing in the networks that carry it. Without USF support, many networks would not be built, and broadband could become unaffordable for millions.
Don’t put the bill on consumers
Congress should not solve the problem by adding another fee to household broadband. Affordability remains politically and economically sensitive, and even modest price increases can push consumers out of the market. Broadband has remained relatively stable in price even as Americans have absorbed years of inflation elsewhere in the household budget.
RELATED: The FCC finally cuts local TV loose
Economists Hal Singer and Ted Tatos found that a 5% increase in broadband prices could cause roughly 10 million households to cancel service. Their review found a different dynamic for large digital advertising platforms, where end users generally do not pay subscription fees and companies are better positioned to absorb assessments.
Former FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested assessing digital advertising revenue from the largest platforms. Congress could also consider certain transmission services — cloud interconnection, backhaul, content delivery networks, satellite transport, and wide-area networking — that depend heavily on the broadband ecosystem.
The precise mechanism matters less than the principle: Broaden the contribution base so consumers carry less of the burden. Bipartisan legislation already points in that direction. The Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act would extend contributions to large internet service providers, with thresholds aimed at companies of significant scale.
The rural job is not done
Some argue that low-earth-orbit satellite services have largely solved rural broadband and made subsidies unnecessary. They have not. Satellite is valuable where terrestrial networks are uneconomical, but it remains capacity-constrained and is not a full substitute for high-capacity terrestrial broadband in every household or community.
A rural family with several people working from home, taking virtual classes, or using telehealth can need sustained high-speed service and reliability that satellite cannot always guarantee as cell density grows. Prices have also risen, weakening the case for satellite as a cheap universal backstop. Satellite belongs in the mix, but it cannot carry the entire rural-connectivity burden by itself.
Big Tech should pitch in
Big Tech benefits from some $200 billion annually in USF-supported broadband investment, yet the companies oppose contributing to the fund by calling such payments a “tax.” That evades the basic question: Why should the largest users and beneficiaries of broadband infrastructure be the only major participants paying nothing toward its cost?
Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta spend billions building their own data centers, cloud networks, and related infrastructure because infrastructure has economic value. They would never give unlimited use of those facilities away for free. Yet they expect private broadband networks to reach their customers without contributing to the universal service system that expands access to those networks.
RELATED: This app censors your phone in a stunning new way — and people are using it on purpose
The contradiction is especially striking because 13 bipartisan governors recently joined major technology companies at the White House, where the firms pledged to cover the cost of infrastructure upgrades needed for their data centers while protecting consumers from higher electricity bills. The Ratepayer Protection Act would codify those pledges. Congress should apply the same logic to broadband.
How Congress can act
Universal service already enjoys bipartisan support. In Consumers’ Research v. Federal Communications Commission, 29 lawmakers and working-group members filed an amicus brief defending USF before the Supreme Court. They warned that dismantling the fund would harm millions of Americans, particularly low-income and rural households. Congress established universal service in 1996 and has repeatedly recognized the need to adapt it as communications technology changes.
The Supreme Court upheld the program’s constitutionality. Congress defended USF in court; now it should make the funding system fair and sustainable in statute.
The path is straightforward: Broaden the contribution base to include the largest users and beneficiaries of the networks USF supports, while protecting consumers from rising costs. The companies that profit most from ubiquitous broadband should help ensure that ubiquitous broadband continues to exist.
Tracking device exposes Amazon's secret plans for rare books
A dinosaur logo is at the center of controversy surrounding the whereabouts of some rare literature.
This story, involving Amazon, has taken wild cross-country turns and led to one of the most unexpected places.
'They just want the content as a bunch of words strung together.'
As AI companies have rushed to gobble up texts for digitization and model training, suspicion has mounted that companies are buying up batches of rare tomes for uses they'd rather keep under wraps.
When it comes to Amazon, the granddaddy of Big Tech book merchants, the narrative starts with one specific shipment of 1,000 books.
Described as having been printed in small batches or obscure languages, the thousand were purchased through an online marketplace called Biblio.
A journalist from 404 Media, piquing his curiosity, asked the seller to help him puzzle through what he described as an anomalous "historical spike" in book sales the past few years. According to Publishers Weekly, book sales increased in 2025 by 2.5% over 2024.
404 decided to affix one of the books with an Apple AirTag — effectively a tracking device — in order to find out who was behind the large purchase.
It worked.
The shipment went to a California airport before winging its way to Milwaukee International Airport. The same day, the AirTag showed that it went on to a warehouse belonging to Trifinity, a specialized shipping and distribution company in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
It stayed there for two weeks before traveling west by truck to Colorado. And then, the next day, it arrived at an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas.
At Amazon Fulfillment Center LAS8, as the warehouse's location is known, Amazon is allegedly collecting, scanning, and badly damaging rare books to train its AI model, all through a team called VGT3. In vaguely military fashion, VGT3 has a patch-like logo: a tyrannosaurus rex baring its teeth over an open book.
The details on book-hungry VGT3 were previously undisclosed until recent reporting, although there have been some online breadcrumbs. On a Reddit thread under AmazonFC from last year, one person said they work at VGT3 and all they do is "scan books."
Amazon has not publicly explained VGT3's scope or operations.
RELATED: 'GAME' OVER? 'Thrones' author George RR Martin reveals what's stopping his last book
Reporting the revelations, 404 Media alleges that Amazon is buying a massive number of books, scanning them to train their AI model, and effectively destroying them in the process, cutting off the spines to make them more easily scannable.
"Some are assigned to cut books, and others go to receive where they get books and scan the bar codes," an alleged employee told 404. "We didn't have rates, but now we do, but it's not stressful."
The systematic scanning of the codes, known in the trade as ISBN numbers, further fuels speculation that the world's books are being methodically scanned by tech companies ultimately intending to consume printed material so thoroughly as to retire it from common use.
Blaze News reached out to Amazon to ask if the books are being scanned to train an AI model, if there is public information about VGT3, and if the books are indeed being destroyed.
In response, an Amazon spokesperson only told Blaze News that the company "purchases books through commercial channels to help develop and improve the products and services our customers use."
RELATED: 'Expert witness' humiliated in $61 million lawsuit after lawyers discover one insane detail
The scope of the rare books were described as being prints that not many people would care about "in the same way people might care about the first edition of 'Oliver Twist.'"
"There are different types of value," said the bookseller who sent out the bulk shipment. "There's monetary value, obviously, but there are a lot of other types of value."
Without identifying the books by name, the seller claimed they offered "historical value, intellectual value, [and] sentimental value. All sorts of things, and all of those the AI companies don't care about. They just want the content as a bunch of words strung together."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
5-star reviews for a fabulist memoir
Jason Arday, the serial fabulist who resigned last week from Cambridge University, released his memoir “Great and Unfortunate Things” on Tuesday. As of this writing, the book had a 4.18 average from 103 ratings on Goodreads. Fully 48% give Arday five stars. Another 37% give him four. Two stars or below? A mere 7%.
The Goodreads jury, apparently, has reached its verdict: The story of a nonverbal autistic boy who could not read until 18 and then rocketed all the way to becoming Cambridge’s youngest black professor is sacred.
When the demand for underrepresented heroes outstrips the supply, fabulists and frauds have an opening. More important, they have an ecosystem.
The reviews are replete with the language of wonder. One called the book “the improbable-but-true story” and awarded five stars “for the basic premise alone,” adding: “You make this stuff up (sic).” Truer words!
Another declared that Arday becoming a college graduate a mere five years after becoming fully literate was “nothing short of amazing.” Others called his accomplishments “truly unbelievable,” his memoir “incredibly moving” and “incredibly inspirational.”
Incredible. Amazing. Unbelievable. The reviewers keep reaching for exactly the right words without quite noticing what those words might mean.
Never mind that Arday stepped down August 5 after Cambridge opened an investigation into his academic qualifications and honorary appointments. Never mind the detailed allegations of extensive textual overlap in his doctoral thesis. Forget the questions surrounding his athletic feats, fundraising claims, and résumé. Pay no attention to the rather awkward question raised by the tale of a man who supposedly learned to read at 18 and graduated from a prestigious institution five years later.
The Goodreads crowd had already rendered its rapturous verdict.
Among the first two dozen or so reviews visible on the site, nearly all awarded four or five stars. Almost nobody stopped to wonder whether the “unbelievable” story might, in fact, be unbelievable.
Why would they? The story delivers everything the contemporary literary class has been trained to admire: a black autistic man overcoming a racist and ableist system; a fierce immigrant mother redeeming her son; grit and determination carrying him into the heights of the ivory tower. It is less a memoir than a perfect machine for producing approved emotions.
RELATED: How to play liberals for suckers
Even reviewers who finished the book after the scandal broke offered only careful, almost apologetic caveats. One finished the memoir, Googled Arday, discovered the plagiarism reports and resignation “only hours” earlier — and still found the book “well written” and “fascinating.”
Several reviewers thanked 37INK, a Simon & Schuster imprint devoted to publishing black authors, for providing advance review copies through NetGalley. NetGalley collects volunteer reviewers whose preferences are already known. Publishers naturally use such networks to build early attention and enthusiasm around books they hope to sell.
Nothing sinister is required here. That’s practically the point.
The machinery works because everyone already knows the story he is supposed to like. The publisher finds the audience. The audience recognizes the moral cues. The reviewers supply the adjectives. By publication day, a book whose author is already engulfed in questions about his biography can arrive wrapped in a halo of “incredible,” “amazing,” and “inspirational.”
Amazon, where reviews could not be posted until the book was actually released, appears much less enchanted. Even 37INK, perhaps wisely, does not feature the book on its home page.
When the demand for underrepresented heroes outstrips the supply, fabulists and frauds have an opening. More important, they have an ecosystem.
The university hires. The publisher packages. The advance readers applaud. And by the time anyone asks whether the inspirational story is true, the five stars are already in.
Sam Altman biopic actors break silence after Amazon drops film: 'I don't know who's running everything'
Actors from the Sam Altman biographical movie are not surprised.
Amazon said in June that the Altman biopic would be better served by going to another studio after dropping the film on mysterious grounds.
'I'm shocked they picked it up in the first place.'
Drop it like its hot
Amazon parted ways with the film, "Artificial," saying it had the "utmost respect and admiration" for director Luca Guadagnino, despite no longer distributing the film.
"We believe that 'Artificial' will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home," the company added.
Little was known about the split, despite obvious theories made about the Big Tech connections between Altman and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos. Now, stars of the film have gone on the record about the movie, with actor Cooper Hoffman offering the most intriguing take.
Son of deceased actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, the 23-year-old was asked by a reporter if it caught him off guard when the movie left Amazon.
"Were you surprised?" Variety's Marc Malkin asked Hoffman.
"That it got dropped? No!" the actor replied emphatically. "I'm shocked they picked it up in the first place."
Hoffman continued, "I was like, this feels like you all are in, like, I don't know — I don't know who’s running everything," the young star went on, seemingly stopping his train of thought.
"When they dropped it, I was kinda like, 'Oh, yeah, that actually kinda, I guess, makes sense," he added.
RELATED: Amazon drops Sam Altman biopic — and everyone wants to know why
Neon dreams
Andrew Garfield, who plays Altman, told the reporter, "I was and I wasn't [surprised]."
"I think there are certain things that fit certain places and don't fit other places and they [Amazon] were nothing but supportive and nothing but encouraging while we were making the film," the former "Amazing Spider-Man" actor explained.
Garfield added that he was grateful to Amazon for helping the film find new distribution.
That new company is Neon, the New York-based distributor behind films like Stephen King's "The Monkey" and "Ferrari" from 2023.
Hoffman said he "couldn't be more happy" about working with the company.
RELATED: OpenAI wants to make its losses public property
Too close to call
Critics have pointed to Altman's appearance at Bezos' wedding last year as evidence of a possible relationship responsible for the movie not fitting in at Amazon.
Meanwhile, actor Ike Barinholtz — who plays Elon Musk in the film — added fuel to the Big-Tech fire last year when he was asked if he had considered meeting Musk before portraying him.
"I'm OK," Barinholtz said, adding that Musk is "famous enough that you get it."
The "MADtv" alumnus added, "All I hope is that if he puts me into a gulag, it's one with all of my friends. That way we can have a party."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Make antitrust fast again
It was 1903, and Theodore Roosevelt had a problem. The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was effectively dead. It had been used rarely, and when it had been, cases moved sluggishly through the courts. Roosevelt wished to move forward on a multitude of what he believed to be monopolies, including in railroads and energy.
Roosevelt was not wrong to be concerned with monopoly. Coming out of the Civil War, America’s Gilded Age had moved the country lurchingly from a regional power to a global power, one that would soon dominate the world.
America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.
But with that explosion of commerce came its domination by a few select companies. And while Roosevelt’s predecessor, William McKinley, had repeatedly urged Congress to crack down on them, it was mostly to no avail. By the time Roosevelt took the reins of power in 1901, several companies effectively ran entire industries.
His problem was solved by Congress, which quickly passed what became known as the Expediting Act. The bill, passed unanimously, allowed for the attorney general to declare a given antitrust case to be of national importance. This in turn mandated the creation of a special three-judge panel on what would today be the level of district courts. After that hearing, which was to be “given precedence over others and in every way expedited,” an appeal could only be levied at the Supreme Court.
Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard Taft, launched a bevy of antitrust cases, breaking apart railroad, cigarette, and energy companies. Americans alive in the 21st century may find it difficult to imagine just how powerful these Gilded Age companies were.
Standard Oil controlled roughly 90% of all oil production in America. American Tobacco produced and sold 86% of all cigarettes in the entire country. And the Northern Securities Company governed effectively all freight railroads from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. By the end of Taft’s term, none of those companies would exist.
RELATED: America needs heroes who do not apologize for being heroes
Eventually, the Expediting Act became a victim of its own success: The large trusts were broken apart, with few — such as the Bell telephone system — existing into the latter half of the 20th century. Eventually, the lack of large antitrust cases gave way to smaller cases filled with minutiae. This, plus complaints from the Supreme Court about its supposedly immense workload, led to the bill's repeal in the 1980s, with antitrust cases ultimately being treated like other civil suits.
Today, the oil industry remains broken up, and no one is concerned about a single cigarette company dominating that industry. But like the turn of the 20th century, there are entirely new industries and economic sectors that have sprung up — and along with them have come entirely new monopolies.
Thirty years ago, the notion that a single company could dominate an online search index would be unfathomable. That the same company could dominate browsers and other aspects of the internet would likewise be difficult to imagine. Amazon, meanwhile, controls America’s book market and facilitates the sale of a majority of all books sold in the United States.
And there are other even more dangerous monopolies that could develop, like in artificial intelligence. OpenAI was founded just over 10 years ago. Its main rival, Anthropic, was only founded in 2021, meaning that it has existed for less time than the United States government has been suing Google. Google, for what it’s worth, owns 14% of Anthropic.
With the speed at which AI is developing, it is not outside the realm of possibility that an AI company controlling an AGI-level large-language model, or beyond, would be able to monopolize the artificial intelligence sector — an extremely concerning prospect, made all the more concerning by the fact that America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.
RELATED: The path to America-first AI
While antitrust laws clearly need to be revamped — the foundational law, upon which many antitrust cases are still brought, was passed in 1890 — a quick and relatively easy solution would be a return to the Expediting Act, with small updates to match our current judicial structures.
Forcing judges to put antitrust cases first and move quickly on them — as opposed to taking months to mull over decisions — along with speedy hearings by the Supreme Court would help preemptively prepare America for the possibility of 21st-century monopolization.
The Supreme Court’s original concern over its workload should be discarded. When the American republic was new, government was not year-round. Congress was out of session for months on end. The president, far from barnstorming the country as they do today, stayed in Washington or simply went home when Congress was out of session. The Supreme Court had a similarly light schedule. This was all in keeping with the times, when things simply moved slowly.
But as speeds have increased, so too have government workloads. Today, Congress — though lawmakers take Fridays off — is in Washington far more often, and the presidency is now a 24/7 job.
But the Supreme Court’s calendar still sits empty for multiple months of the year, with bursts of work coming throughout. If the court will have to hear a handful of cases the attorney general deems to be of critical importance, the justices may have to suffer the indignity of having only two months of uninterrupted vacation as opposed to three.
There is something for everyone in bringing back the Expediting Act. Investors and employees will no longer be left in limbo for years as merger trials drag on and on. Antitrust advocates will not need to wait endlessly for results. And America will be better equipped to deal with sudden monopolies that, in our increasingly fast-paced world, can come about in a flash.
No one benefits from slow antitrust hearings. Congress should pass a new version of the Expediting Act and make antitrust fast again.
'You can't fight it': Trump defends data centers, signs up 23 governors to shield Americans from price hikes
President Donald Trump is bullish on American technology and keen to see America dominate the "global race for AI." He has, accordingly, become a champion of artificial intelligence data centers and has even tasked his administration with using federally owned land and resources to help develop them.
Trump emphasized during an event on Thursday at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in the national capital that opposition to the erection of data centers across the country is futile — but that consumers should not fear having to shoulder the burden of supporting such inevitable facilities.
'You have to go with it.'
In his State of the Union address in February, the president acknowledged that many Americans are "concerned that energy demand from AI data centers could unfairly drive up their electric utility bills."
Recent polls show that Americans largely oppose data centers. A Gallup poll conducted in March found that 71% of Americans somewhat or strongly oppose the construction of an AI data center in their area. A survey conducted this month by Public First found that 41% of respondents oppose building a data center within three miles of their homes, up from 28% in January, and only 24% of respondents support such an initiative, down from 37% at the beginning of the year.
To assuage such concerns, Trump announced in his SOTU speech that the negotiation of the "Rate Payer Protection Pledge," which has companies agree to: spare consumers from price hikes by building, bringing, or buying new power supply; paying for new power delivery infrastructure upgrades; paying special rates "whether they use the electricity or not"; and investing local job creation.
Within days of the announcement, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI signed the nonbinding pledge.
On Thursday, Trump revealed that the pledge now has among its signatories 23 governors, various state legislators, numerous electricity providers, and data center developers.
RELATED: The path to America-first AI
The three Republican governors who did not sign the pledge were Phil Scott of Vermont, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Ron DeSantis of Florida. DeSantis ratified legislation in May to ensure that "local governments maintain the authority to reject data center development in their communities" and to protect Florida's water resources from data center consumption.
According to the White House, the pledge "now covers 80% of all power delivered to U.S. homes and businesses and protects 263 million Americans when a data center is built nearby."
After suggesting that adherence to the pledge and the construction of additional infrastructure to support the incoming data centers would actually drive down utility rates, Trump stressed that "America's goal must be to dominate the future, and that includes being the number one superpower in artificial intelligence."
"Whoever wins that race is probably going to win, period," he added.
Trump suggested that foreign "propaganda" might be partly to blame for those "communists" and others now opposed to having data centers in their back yards. According to the president, communities desirous of data centers "are the smart communities because it means tremendous numbers of jobs, very little actual disruption."
"You have to convince your community how great these things — you can't fight it. You have to go with it," said Trump.
"If you don't have it, everybody else wants it."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com