Kevin O’Leary Accuses Foreign-Backed Groups of Spreading Misinformation to Stall U.S. AI Data Centers

Kevin O’Leary, chairman of O’Leary Ventures and a prominent data center developer, pushed back against growing protests targeting artificial intelligence infrastructure, describing much of the opposition as driven by misinformation and foreign influence operations.

In a discussion on data centers and community concerns, O’Leary highlighted that communities across the country have blocked or delayed at least 48 data center projects valued at some $156 billion in the past year alone. He argued that the AI boom requires power, land, and public trust, but opponents are being fed inaccurate information.

O’Leary detailed his experience after a surge in social media activity on May 4, when messages to his accounts—bolstered by his roughly 12 million followers from Shark Tank—spiked dramatically with false claims about his projects. Regarding a proposed data center in Utah, he refuted assertions that it would draw power from the local grid, take water from the Great Salt Lake, or span 40,000 acres. “We’re bringing our own power,” he stated. “That’s not true… It’s a tenth of that.”

O’Leary said his team, including data scientists skilled in scraping IP addresses, traced the coordinated campaign within about 16 hours to groups including the Party for Socialism and Liberation and People’s Dispatch—entities he said he had not previously encountered.

Co-host Taylor referenced analysis from the Bitcoin Policy Institute and the Prosperity Institute, describing the campaign against American AI as involving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China state media funneling influence through the Singham network, eventually reaching figures like Senators Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Taylor noted that what appears as grassroots opposition may be funded by foreign billionaires or China to impose moratoriums on data centers, allowing China to gain ground in the AI race.

O’Leary emphasized national security implications, noting the U.S. currently leads with over 4,000 data centers and plans for another 3,000, but faces efforts to slow development through political means. He shared 90 pages of IP addresses and information on death threats with the FBI and other government agencies. O’Leary also highlighted involvement from the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the People and provided government officials with details on groups like the Alliance for the Betterment of Utah, questioning their funding sources, including potential Chinese money.

While acknowledging legitimate local concerns—such as impacts on rural communities, power bills, water usage, and changes to community character—O’Leary and others stressed the need to distinguish these from orchestrated campaigns. Co-hosts Brian and Jackie noted that residents in places like Wisconsin, Missouri, New York, and New Jersey have expressed worries about massive projects altering rural areas without sufficient local input, though they supported ensuring new infrastructure is tucked away, non-intrusive, and does not strain town resources.

Jackie pointed out that China faces far fewer regulatory hurdles, allowing faster development, while the U.S. must navigate permits, courts, and community processes. Lou drew parallels to past opposition to 5G cell towers, which faded as public adoption of the technology grew.

O’Leary described his sites as being built on remote desert land sold by ranchers, away from residential areas, creating jobs and economic opportunities. He questioned why foreign actors should influence decisions for American landowners. “Why should somebody in Cuba have the right to tell a rancher in Utah what to do?” he asked.

O’Leary vowed to continue collaborating with authorities to promote transparency. “We shine the light of transparency on these nefarious actors,” he said, referring to himself as a “data center honey badger” in the ongoing race for AI superiority.

The discussion underscored the tension between genuine community questions and amplified opposition, with participants calling for balanced development that addresses valid concerns while advancing U.S. technological leadership.