Kevin O’Leary blames Chinese propaganda for growing opposition to AI data centers

Kevin O’Leary says opposition to large AI data centers in the United States is being fueled by Chinese propaganda, but the claim has drawn skepticism because many local concerns are already clear. The Shark Tank investor is facing backlash over a proposed $100 billion data center project in Utah, and he argues that foreign influence is helping drive public resistance to projects like his.

O’Leary first made the claim in a Fox News interview on May 10 and later repeated it in other interviews and posts on X. He said hundreds of millions of dollars from China are being used to weaken American AI development, with money allegedly routed through other countries and used to support protesters. In the Utah case, he claimed that most protesters were brought in from outside the area.

The claim is not limited to O’Leary. Some officials and industry supporters have made similar arguments, saying foreign influence may be amplifying public anger around AI infrastructure. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has also suggested that opposition to data centers is not always local or organic. However, the report notes that neither O’Leary nor Burgum has provided verifiable evidence for those claims.

The broader dispute comes as AI data centers face growing resistance across the United States. Local communities are pushing back over power use, water demand, noise, land use, and higher utility costs. These concerns are not small. Data centers can require large amounts of electricity and cooling resources, and many people are worried about whether local infrastructure can handle that pressure.

That is why the propaganda argument is complicated. Foreign governments may have an interest in slowing American AI growth, but that does not erase genuine local concerns. Even people who believe foreign interference is possible have warned against treating all opposition as fake. Some industry observers say the issue can be real while still accepting that Americans have serious reasons to question nearby data center projects.

The Utah proposal is especially sensitive because the state already faces water and environmental pressure. A massive data center in a dry region can quickly become a local political issue, even without outside influence. Residents may support technology in general while still opposing a specific project if they believe it will strain their community.

The debate also reflects a larger shift in public opinion around AI. Many people are already frustrated by rising hardware prices, component shortages, and job cuts linked to automation. When they hear that huge data centers need more land, more power, and more water, the benefits can feel distant while the costs feel local and immediate.

For AI companies and investors, the message is clear. Blaming foreign influence may rally political support, but it does not answer the practical questions that communities are asking. People want to know how much water will be used, how power prices will be affected, what jobs will actually be created, and who will be responsible if local infrastructure suffers.

O’Leary’s claim adds a national security angle to the data center debate, but the core issue remains local. AI may be a strategic priority for the United States, yet data centers are built in real towns with real limits. If the industry wants public support, it will need more than warnings about China. It will need transparency, clear evidence, and serious answers for the communities being asked to host these projects.