Tech Firms Brought Data Center Hate Upon Themselves. Here’s What They Should Do Instead
The U.S. needs data centers, and right now Silicon Valley is making Americans hate them because they don't know how to speak to Americans.The U.S. needs data centers, and right now Silicon Valley is making Americans hate them because they don't know how to speak to Americans.Pro-MAGA Mexican union head: America needs a richer Mexico
Mexico should be rich. It shares a 2,000-mile land border with the largest consumer market on earth, coastlines on two oceans, abundant natural resources, and a young workforce. Prosperity should have arrived decades ago.
The industrial boom did. Mexico is now America’s largest trading partner for the third consecutive year, selling the United States $534 billion in goods in 2025. It has become a major manufacturing power, and the nearshoring wave that followed the trade war with Beijing made it one of the world’s most sought-after industrial destinations.
‘We are not applying to be the world’s next sweatshop. We are applying to be America’s trusted factory floor.’
But too little of that prosperity reached the people doing the work. For decades, Mexico’s biggest export was not cars or electronics. It was Mexicans: More than 12 million now live abroad, most of them in the United States. A thriving country does not export its own children by accident.
Alejandro Martínez Araiza, national general secretary of the National Trade Union for Food and Commerce, Mexico’s oldest private-sector union, has an explanation economists rarely say out loud.
“Cheap labor was never an accident. It was the design,” Martínez Araiza told me. “Investment came for the low wage, and the system was built to guarantee the wage stayed low. Protection unions were the lock on the door. Corruption was the guard. The worker was never meant to prosper, because his poverty was the product being sold.”
That diagnosis is relevant today because the old design now stands between North America and its goal of competing more effectively with China. Martínez Araiza is candid about the scale of the challenge: China still dwarfs Mexico in manufacturing output.
“Can Mexico replace China? In volume, never, and anyone who promises otherwise is selling you something,” Martínez Araiza said. “You do not defeat China by trying to be China. You defeat it by being the neighbor China can never be: next door, with shared interests, and rules you can actually verify. We are not applying to be the world’s next sweatshop. We are applying to be America’s trusted factory floor."
That is why he treats labor enforcement as supply-chain security. A real factory with real workers, better wages, and an independent union able to walk the floor is harder to disguise as a front company. In his formulation, labor enforcement becomes a certificate of origin that paperwork alone cannot fake.
His proposals for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement review follow from there: automatic consequences for violations, enforcement covering warehouses and logistics as well as factories, a regional wage floor of $7.25 an hour, and a verification alliance of democratic worker organizations across all three countries.
RELATED: Meet the man making Mexico useful again
Martínez Araiza is equally candid about Mexico’s vulnerability. More than 80% of Mexican exports go to the United States.
“China can survive a trade war with America. Mexico cannot, and I will not pretend otherwise,” he told me. “That is exactly why Mexico’s only rational strategy is a USMCA so credible and so enforceable that no one ever needs a trade war. Certainty is the cheapest stimulus that exists."
Then comes the part Washington rarely considers. Mexico maintains trade agreements with about 50 countries. “Everyone talks about Mexico as somebody's back door,” Martínez Araiza said. “I want the opposite: Mexico as America’s front door. Build it together in North America, and sell it to the world through our agreements. Close the back door. Open the front door. Made in North America, sold to the world.”
When work pays, people stay. "Pay a real wage, and Mexico’s biggest export goes back to being products, not people," he says. Border security, in his telling, begins on the payroll.
American readers may be skeptical of a Mexican union leader offering trade advice. But the incentives line up. His program raises the cost of the labor arbitrage that moved American factories south while reducing one of the pressures that drives migration north. President Trump’s trade agenda seeks both outcomes.
Martínez Araiza proposes to pursue them with something the American taxpayer does not have to create: organized workers already inside the supply chain, using secret-ballot elections and replacing the old protection-union system workplace by workplace.
The design that kept Mexico poor is breaking. The question is whether North America can replace it with something that lets workers, manufacturers, and both countries prosper together.
“There is no fair trade on poverty wages,” Martínez Araiza said. “The best tariff is a good wage.”
How Trump Accounts Could Solve Social Security’s Insolvency Crisis
Trump Accounts may represent the first serious step toward a retirement system built on ownership instead of dependency.How To Fuel An Entrepreneurship Revival To Save America From AI-Driven Job Loss
Why there will be a groundswell of new small businesses and how the Trump administration can help them flourish.Steelworkers need a future, not another merger war
Roxanne Brown, the head of the United Steelworkers, must recognize the reality of her members and consider the recent history of the steel industry. If she remembers what happened when steel mills closed and factory towns devolved into ghost towns, she must distinguish herself from her predecessor, David McCall, whose intransigence during his tenure was neither shrewd nor productive. To set her union on a renewed path forward, Brown must distance herself from McCall’s troubling legacy and avoid jeopardizing the very workers she claims to represent.
Brown has reportedly rejected U.S. Steel’s initial contract offer, setting the stage for the next round of negotiations beginning July. If talks go south again this summer, workers could face lost wages, disrupted health benefits, and uncertainty over retirement security. Their families would feel the pressure through tighter household budgets, delayed bills, strained child care and health care decisions, and the emotional toll that comes with prolonged economic uncertainty.
Steelworkers deserve leadership focused on jobs, wages, benefits, and retirement security — not reputation management or corporate alliances.
In steel towns and surrounding communities, the impact would ripple through local businesses, schools, churches, charities, and public services that depend on steady paychecks and a stable industrial base. A lockout would not just pause production; it would threaten livelihoods, family stability, and the economic backbone of communities built around American steel.
McCall's reckless efforts to tank the Nippon-U.S. Steel merger led to a revolt among steelworkers, and his alliance with competitor Cleveland-Cliffs’ CEO Lourenco Goncalves showed he prioritizes his own reputation and corporate alliances over his members. In the next round of contract talks, McCall should not be allowed anywhere near the negotiating table from the union side.
For decades, steelworkers have been heavily affected by market swings and fluctuating steel production demands. 2026 has been a welcome relief of slow but steady growth, aided by investments like those from Nippon, shifts toward modernization, and economic tailwinds, but history shows this tide can turn anytime.
When the steel industry turns down, it faces facility idling, facility closures, layoffs, and industry upheaval. Despite recent upturn, this volatility has contributed to a public perception that blue-collar jobs like those of steelworkers are unstable, making the upcoming contract negotiations in July that much more significant.
The past tells us quite a bit about what could be ahead for steelworkers. Last year’s high-profile Nippon-U.S. Steel merger carried major consequences for American steel production and steelworkers’ jobs. Yet as the deal progressed through the approval process, McCall chose to advance his own interests rather than champion union members’ security and prosperity, revealing deeply troubling behavior.
In 2023, when the merger was proposed, U.S. mills produced about 89.7 million net tons of raw steel, supporting 70,000 workers in iron and steel manufacturing. The deal promised substantial benefits to American steelworkers, including: $2.7 billion in capital investments exclusively dedicated to USW facilities; a 10-year commitment to maintain steel production levels at existing facilities, protecting union jobs; a $5,000 signing bonus for union workers and eligible nonunion employees below the senior-manager level upon deal closure; and written, enforceable commitments to honor existing union contracts and labor agreements.
RELATED: The AI bubble is about to pop. Here’s how to prepare yourself.
Despite clear support among many rank-and-file members for the merger’s approval, McCall staked out firm personal opposition that did not reflect union workers’ input. In a February 2024 phone interview, McCall stated bluntly: “I want to kill this deal.”
McCall also took advantage of the Biden administration’s likely politically partisan, election-driven opposition to the merger. A lawsuit alleged that Biden sought to kill the deal to “curry favor with the USW leadership in [Pennsylvania] in his bid for re-election ... motivated by ‘purely political reasons.’”
Perhaps most damning is that McCall’s opposition clashed with the interests of steelworkers.
This is a pivotal time for the future of the American steel industry. The industry can only thrive if USW and the companies that employ its members can reach a commonsense agreement that both protects workers and allows companies to continue operating.
Brown must capitalize on this unique opportunity to move the union past the destructiveness of McCall’s leadership by participating in good faith in the upcoming negotiations and avoiding prolonging the contract talks at the expense of her members’ well-being. America’s steelworkers deserve better than their fate still being in the shadows of David McCall.
Mamdani’s ‘tax the rich’ stunt backfires as billionaires push back
New York City Democrat mayor Zohran Mamdani’s latest political stunt has wealthy investors signaling they may rethink their commitments to the once-flourishing city — just as BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales predicted.
“They’re not going to just sit there and take it. They’re going to do something about that. What do you think these millionaires that don’t even live there full-time are going to do?” she asks, showing a video Mamdani released revealing his plans for the rich.
“When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we’re taxing the rich. I’m thrilled to announce we’ve secured a pied-a-terre tax, the first in New York’s history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city,” Mamdani explained in a promotional video.
And they’re not happy — especially billionaire Ken Griffin.
Mamdani “doxxed” the CEO of Citadel in his video, pointing out the location of his apartment.
“I don’t think this should come as a shock to anyone. He wasn’t very happy about being name-checked in this little, you know, ad. And so, Ken Griffin now is pushing back after Mamdani featured ... his $238 million penthouse in the tax-the-rich video,” Gonzales explains, pointing out that in a letter to Citadel’s employees, the COO subtly hinted at a possible re-evaluation of its New York City investment.
“Because you see, as the story goes, he was planning on investing $6 billion into a development project. And now he’s like, ‘You know what? I don’t know if I want to do that. I don’t know if I want to continue investing my money in a city that just wants to tax me into oblivion,’” she continues.
“Who could have possibly predicted that that would be the final result of Zohran Mamdani just trying to get the rich to pay for all of his free stuff, which as we know isn’t even free? So, things are not going well on that front,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
White House requests $1.5 trillion for Pentagon's 2027 budget. Here's what the administration has in mind.
The Trump White House has proposed that Congress increase the Pentagon's budget by nearly 44% compared to last year to roughly $1.5 trillion and reduce non-defense spending by $73 billion, or 10%.
"This is a $441 billion or 44-percent increase from the 2026 enacted level in combination with the $151.5 billion in mandatory funding provided through the Working Families Tax Cut Act," the budget request says.
While nearly $1.2 trillion of the total would reportedly come from the regular appropriations process, $350 billion would alternatively come through a budget reconciliation bill.
'I'm very wary.'
This request is in addition to the $200 billion supplemental package requested by the Department of War to sustain the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.
According to the White House, the requested sum — which would reportedly raise U.S. military spending to its highest level in modern history — would help restore "the readiness and lethality of the force by ensuring America's warfighters are trained, equipped, and medically ready to fight and win."
In addition to funding a pay raise of 7% for all Pentagon military personnel ranked E-5 and below, of 6% for E-6 to O-3, and of 5% for O-4 and above, the requested budget would help:
- Fund the "next-generation missile defense shield" outlined in President Donald Trump's executive order titled "The Iron Dome for America";
- "Secure and defend America's vital national and economic security interests in, from, and to space";
- Fund the procurement of 18 battle force ships and 16 non-battle force ships;
- Fund the procurement of 12 unspecified "critical" munitions at a time of dwindling stores of Patriot missiles, Standard Missile-3s, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors;
- "Fix longstanding shortfalls in the National Defense Stockpile" of critical minerals;
- Secure 85 F-35 jets;
- Prioritize the development and production of the F-47, a sixth-generation combat aircraft Boeing won the contract to develop last year;
- Boost America's drone manufacturing base; and
- Scale the Armed Forces' "AI ecosystem," among other initiatives.
The White House further proposed that Congress continue to "eliminate millions of wasteful and egregious spending related to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other 'woke' policies" at the Pentagon.
RELATED: America First means taking care of our own, not another war
Numerous Democratic lawmakers rushed to criticize the White House's budget request.
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.), for instance, stated, "Trump wants $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon while eliminating the programs that help you pay your heating bill, fund your child's education, and keep your family healthy. This isn't a budget. It's a betrayal of the American people."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash."
There may also be some resistance on the right.
"I'm very wary of voting for excessive spending in defense," said Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (R), Politico reported.
'It is the most robust increase in defense spending in many years.'
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in an op-ed on Friday that while he supports maintaining America's stockpiles, strengthening the defense industrial base, and maintaining "the capabilities needed to deter China," he "cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war."
The budget request has, however, found a number of staunch supporters in the GOP.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement, "This funding will ensure our military remains the most advanced in the world, supporting an unparalleled force capable of defending our interests in the 21st century."
"America is facing the most dangerous global environment since World War II. Growing threats from adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Islamic radicals, and narco-terrorists require decisive action and renewed urgency to reinvest in our defenses," the duo continued. "This bold commitment provides the resources needed to rebuild American military capability and confront those challenges head-on."
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.) celebrated the budget request, stating, "It is the most robust increase in defense spending in many years, and it is more than justified by the threats we face throughout the world."
Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a note to Congress appended to the budget request, "President Trump promised to reinvest in America's national security infrastructure, to make sure our Nation is safe in a dangerous world. The 2027 Budget upholds this promise and would ensure that the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
America should eliminate the H-1B and replace it with THIS
Every time immigration comes up, it’s painted as a choice of extremes. Compassion or common sense? No immigration or no rules?
That’s a false choice — and it’s one that benefits only the politicians who’d rather argue than govern.
Preferring immigration that strengthens our economy instead of undercutting it is just common sense.
The recent controversy over H-1B visas is a perfect example. Americans are waking up to the reality that this program, sold as a way to fill “critical skills gaps,” too often does the opposite. It replaces U.S. workers, suppresses wages, and gives leverage to corporations that have every incentive to choose cheaper foreign labor over American talent. That’s not America First. That’s America Last — with a diversity slogan slapped on top.
But here’s what the media and the political class won’t tell you: Not all immigration programs are created equal. And if we’re serious about prioritizing American workers, jobs, and communities, we should be talking a lot more about the policies that actually deliver.
Programs like the EB-5 investor visa system.
Unlike H-1B, EB-5 doesn’t take jobs from Americans. Instead, it creates them. It doesn’t offer handouts. It requires real skin in the game from applicants. And with a strict cap of 10,650 visas, it maintains a controlled influx of immigrants, keeping America stable and secure.
Here’s how it works: A foreign applicant invests at least $1.05 million — or $800,000 if the investment is in a targeted employment area, such as a rural community or a region with high unemployment. Returns are not guaranteed. If the investment fails, the investor loses his money.
In exchange, he gets a chance at a green card — only if he meets strict requirements and proves his investment generated American jobs.
That’s the key: EB-5 doesn’t promise success; it requires it.
RELATED: ‘A direct path to Citizenship’: Trump announces official launch of Trump Gold Card visa program
EB-5 aligns incentives the way immigration policy should. Investors succeed only if American communities succeed. Jobs must be created here, projects must be built here, and money must stay here. That’s a far cry from visa programs that reward outsourcing, encourage dependency, and leave taxpayers holding the bag. EB-5 treats U.S. residency as something to be earned.
The results speak for themselves. Between 2008 and 2021, the program generated $43.9 billion in foreign direct investment. That money translates to real American improvement through projects like hotels, infrastructure, commercial developments, and housing. From 2010 to 2013 alone, EB-5 investments were responsible for creating over 100,000 American jobs.
Contrast that with H-1B, where companies can import foreign workers, often at lower wages, to the detriment of American citizens.
Critics love to point to early reports of fraud in the EB-5 program. What they conveniently leave out is that those cases were tied to bad actors running projects — not the investors themselves. The perpetrators were prosecuted. Reforms followed.
In fact, the program has been significantly strengthened over time. Investment thresholds were raised in 2019 to ensure only serious investors qualify. Then came the 2022 reforms, which added even more transparency, oversight, and accountability.
That’s how a healthy immigration system is supposed to work. When abuse was identified, Congress stepped in. Oversight increased. Standards tightened. Transparency improved. Instead of scrapping a productive program, lawmakers fixed it — proving that enforcement, not abandonment, is the answer when a policy shows real promise.
The compliance data doesn’t lie. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported a 94% decrease in I-829 petition denials by 2015 — meaning the overwhelming majority of participants were meeting the program’s requirements.
That’s what responsible immigration looks like: high standards, strict enforcement, and real benefits for America.
RELATED: Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right
And let’s address another elephant in the room. EB-5 doesn’t fast-track voters. It doesn’t hand out political favors or rely on emotional blackmail about being “anti-immigrant.” It’s transactional, transparent, and limited by design.
You invest. You create jobs. You follow the rules. Or you don’t qualify.
That’s it.
For years, Americans have been told that questioning immigration policy makes them heartless. But there’s nothing heartless about asking whether a program actually helps this country. Preferring immigration that strengthens our economy instead of undercutting it is just common sense.
If Washington insists on talking about immigration, let’s at least talk honestly. Programs like H-1B deserve scrutiny — and reform — because they too often put corporations ahead of citizens. Programs like EB-5, when properly enforced, do the opposite.
America doesn’t need more slogans. We need smarter policy. And that starts with rewarding systems that put Americans first.
Don’t Wait Until You Die To Give Your Kids Their Inheritance
A dollar at 25 can change a destiny. A dollar at 55 barely moves the needle.Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift
Welcome to the techno-feudal state, where citizens are forced to underwrite unnecessary and harmful technology at the expense of the technology they actually need.
The economic story of 2025 is the government-driven build-out of hyperscale AI data centers — sold as innovation, justified as national strategy, and pursued in service of cloud-based chatbot slop and expanded surveillance. This build-out is consuming land, food, water, and energy at enormous scale. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright bluntly put it, “It takes massive amounts of electricity to generate intelligence. The more energy invested, the more intelligence produced.”
Shortages will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
That framing ignores what is being sacrificed — and distorted — in the process.
Beyond the destruction of rural communities and the strain placed on national energy capacity, government favoritism toward AI infrastructure is warping markets. Capital that once sustained the hardware and software ecosystem of the digital economy is being siphoned into subsidized “AI factories,” chasing artificial general intelligence instead of cheaper, more efficient investments in narrow AI.
Thanks to fiscal, monetary, tax, and regulatory favoritism, the result is free chatbot slop and an increasingly scarce, expensive supply of laptops, phones, and consumer hardware.
Subsidies break the market
For decades, consumer electronics stood as one of the greatest deflationary success stories in modern economics. Unlike health care or education — both heavily monopolized by government — the computer industry operated with relatively little distortion. From December 1997 to August 2015, the CPI for “personal computers and peripheral equipment” fell 96%. Over that same period, medical care, housing, and food costs rose between 80% and 200%.
That era is ending.
AI data centers are now crowding out consumer electronics. Major manufacturers such as Dell and Samsung are scaling back or discontinuing entire product lines because they can no longer secure components diverted to AI chip production.
Prices for phones and laptops are rising sharply. Jobs tied to consumer electronics — especially the remaining U.S.-based assembly operations — are being squeezed out in favor of data center hardware that benefits a narrow set of firms.
This is policy-driven distortion, not organic market evolution.
Through initiatives like Stargate and hundreds of billions in capital pushed toward data center expansion, the government has created incentives for companies to abandon consumer hardware in favor of AI infrastructure. The result is shortages that will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are retooling factories to prioritize AI-grade silicon for data centers instead of personal devices. DRAM production is being routed almost entirely toward servers because it is far more profitable to leverage $40,000 AI chips than $500-$800 laptops. In the fourth quarter of 2025, contract prices for certain 16GB DDR5 chips rose nearly 300% as supply was diverted. Dell and Lenovo have already imposed 15%-30% price hikes on PCs, citing insatiable AI-sector demand.
The chip crunch
The situation is deteriorating quickly. DRAM inventory levels are down 80% year over year, with just three weeks of supply on hand — down from 9.5 weeks in July. SK Hynix expects shortages to persist through late 2027. Samsung has announced it is effectively out of inventory and has more than doubled DDR5 contract prices to roughly $19-$20 per unit. DDR5 is now standard across new consumer and commercial desktops and laptops, including Apple MacBooks.
Samsung has also signaled it may exit the SSD market altogether, deeming it insufficiently glamorous compared with subsidized data center investments. Nvidia has warned it may cut RTX 50 series production by up to 40%, a move that would drive up the cost of entry-level gaming systems.
Shrinkflation is next. Before the data center bubble, the market was approaching a baseline of 16GB of RAM and 1TB SSDs for entry-level laptops. As memory is diverted to enterprise customers, manufacturers will revert to 8GB systems with slower storage to keep prices under $999 — ironically rendering those machines incapable of running the very AI applications they’re working on.
Real innovation sidelined
The damage extends beyond prices. Research and development in conventional computing are already suffering. Investment in efficient CPUs, affordable networking equipment, edge computing, and quantum-adjacent technologies has slowed as capital and talent are pulled into AI accelerators.
This is precisely backward. Narrow AI — focused on real-world tasks like logistics, agriculture, port management, and manufacturing — is where genuine productivity gains lie. China understands this and is investing accordingly. The United States is not. Instead, firms like Roomba, which experimented with practical autonomy, are collapsing — only to be acquired by the Chinese!
This is not a free market. Between tax incentives, regulatory favoritism, land-use carve-outs, capital subsidies, and artificially suppressed interest rates, the government has created an arms race for a data center bubble China itself is not pursuing. Each round of monetary easing inflates the same firms’ valuations, enabling further speculative investment divorced from consumer need.
RELATED: China’s AI strategy could turn Americans into data mines
Hype over utility
As Charles Hugh Smith recently noted, expanding credit boosts asset prices, which then serve as collateral for still more leverage — allowing capital-rich firms to outbid everyone else while hollowing out the broader economy.
The pattern is familiar. Consider the Ford plant in Glendale, Kentucky, where 1,600 workers were laid off after the collapse of government-favored electric vehicle investments. That facility is now being retooled to produce batteries for data centers. When one subsidy collapses, another replaces it.
We are trading convention for speculation. Conventional technology — reliable hardware, the internet, mobile computing — delivers proven, measurable utility. The current investment surge into artificial general intelligence is based on hypothetical future returns propped up by state power.
The good old laptop is becoming collateral damage in what may prove to be the largest government-induced tech bubble yet.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com