Report Raises Alarms Over Alleged Foreign-Linked Campaign to Block U.S. AI Data Centers
A newly released report is fueling fresh concern about foreign influence inside America’s rapidly escalating debate over artificial intelligence and the data centers that power it.
The report, titled “Foreign Influence in the Campaign Against American AI” and published by the Bitcoin Policy Institute, alleges that a web of activist organizations, foreign billionaires, and Chinese state media narratives are converging in coordinated efforts to stall or stop the construction of AI infrastructure in the United States.
The immediate flashpoint came after the activist group CodePink released a video attacking a proposed data center project in Utah backed by investor Kevin O’Leary. But according to the report, that video was not an isolated act of activism — it was part of a broader, multi-year effort to shape U.S. public opinion and policy around artificial intelligence, data centers, and export controls.
At stake, the report argues, is nothing less than America’s technological edge in what many analysts describe as a growing AI arms race with the People’s Republic of China.
The Three Alleged “Vectors” of Influence
The Bitcoin Policy Institute identifies what it calls three primary “vectors” of foreign influence converging on opposition to American AI development:
- A nonprofit network linked to tech entrepreneur Neville Roy Singham
- Narratives promoted by Chinese Communist Party state media
- Financial support from foreign billionaires funding U.S.-based advocacy groups
According to the report, these forces are not merely expressing shared ideological preferences but are reinforcing one another’s messaging and policy objectives in ways that align with Beijing’s strategic interests.
Whether every connection alleged in the report withstands scrutiny remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over AI infrastructure has rapidly moved from zoning disputes and environmental questions to high-stakes geopolitical confrontation.
The Singham Network and CodePink
Central to the report’s thesis is Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born tech entrepreneur who has been reported to reside in Shanghai. Singham is married to Jodie Evans, co-founder of CodePink, an activist organization long known for its anti-war and anti-defense spending campaigns.
Investigative reporting has previously documented substantial financial flows associated with Singham. According to earlier congressional inquiries and media investigations, approximately $285 million was directed into six nonprofits over several years through complex structures that involved shell entities and a donor-advised fund once associated with Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs has stated that it terminated the donor-advised fund in early 2024.
The Bitcoin Policy Institute report alleges that organizations funded through this network have, over the last five years, produced content opposing:
- U.S. AI data centers and infrastructure expansion
- AI laboratories and commercial AI firms
- Semiconductor export controls targeting China
- Framing of AI competition as a strategic rivalry with Beijing
In January 2026, CodePink published a piece critical of data center expansion, including projects such as Meta’s Hyperion project in Louisiana and data facilities in Wyoming. The messaging portrayed the expansion of AI infrastructure as environmentally harmful and tied it to what the group described as a “new Cold War on China.”
Critics argue that casting AI infrastructure through the lens of anti-militarism or environmental harm without equally scrutinizing China’s own buildout risks skewing the American debate in a way that benefits foreign competitors.
Chinese State Media Messaging
The report also points to what it describes as narrative alignment between U.S.-based activist campaigns and Chinese state-controlled outlets such as CGTN, China Daily, and the Global Times.
These outlets have frequently published criticisms of American AI development, portraying U.S. data centers as:
- Environmentally destructive
- Overly energy-intensive
- Economically destabilizing
- Contributing to militarization
At the same time, Beijing is aggressively investing in its own AI ecosystem under national strategic initiatives designed to achieve global leadership in artificial intelligence by 2030. According to multiple public policy assessments, including documentation from U.S. government sources such as the U.S. Department of Commerce, China provides heavy state support and subsidies for advanced computing and semiconductor development.
The report describes this contrast as “asymmetrical influence” — warning that while Chinese media discourages American expansion, Beijing continues to accelerate its own AI construction.
Congressional AI Debate and Foreign-Affiliated Participants
The policy debate escalated in March when Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the so-called “AI Data Center Moratorium Act.”
Weeks later, Sanders hosted a Capitol Hill event titled “The Existential Threat of AI.” According to the report, two of the four panelists had affiliations with Chinese governmental institutions:
- Zeng Yi, identified as founding dean of the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance
- Xue Lan, described as a counselor to China’s State Council and chair of China’s National AI Governance Committee
The presence of foreign AI governance officials in a U.S. Senate event triggered concerns among some national security observers. Critics argue that allowing individuals tied to a strategic competitor to shape conversations about American regulatory policy may inadvertently echo Chinese policy preferences.
The report does not allege illegal conduct by members of Congress but frames the optics as deeply concerning in the context of great-power competition.
Dark Money Concerns and Foreign Billionaires
Another element of the report focuses on financial flows through U.S. philanthropic organizations associated with Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss and British billionaire Alan Parker.
The report alleges that charitable networks linked to these figures have directed substantial funding into advocacy infrastructure that later mobilized against AI data center buildouts.
One cited example involved a December 2025 coalition letter organized by Food & Water Watch calling for a national moratorium on new AI data center construction. Roughly 230 organizations signed the letter, including groups reportedly connected to funding networks associated with Wyss and Parker.
Less than four months later, federal moratorium legislation was formally introduced.
The report argues that such rapid coordination may signal organized advocacy infrastructure rather than spontaneous grassroots opposition.
To be clear, philanthropy and advocacy are legal hallmarks of American civil society. The question raised by the report is not whether funding advocacy is legal — but whether foreign-aligned narratives and strategic rivals are indirectly shaping the terms of domestic technology policy.
FARA and Congressional Investigations
The matter has drawn attention from multiple House committees, including the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
Some lawmakers are examining whether certain organizations should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law requiring individuals or entities acting on behalf of foreign principals to disclose their relationships and activities.
Letters have reportedly been sent to Singham-linked nonprofits seeking internal documents related to funding, operational coordination, and potential ties to foreign governments.
No formal charges have been announced, and several individuals and organizations named in reporting have denied wrongdoing or declined comment.
The Strategic Stakes: AI as National Power
Artificial intelligence is no longer an emerging niche technology — it is becoming the backbone of next-generation defense systems, economic productivity, energy optimization, and medical innovation.
Modern AI systems require massive cloud computing facilities known as hyperscale data centers. These facilities consume large amounts of electricity and water, raising legitimate environmental and infrastructure questions. But they are also essential to:
- Developing advanced AI models
- Supporting American military applications
- Powering domestic innovation startups
- Maintaining U.S. leadership in semiconductors
- Strengthening economic competitiveness
The debate, therefore, is not simply environmental versus economic — it is strategic.
“The choice facing policymakers is not between AI or no AI,” the report concludes. “It is between American AI or Chinese AI.”
That framing reflects a growing bipartisan realization that technology leadership defines geopolitical influence in the 21st century.
Balancing Safety, Sovereignty, and Strength
It is entirely reasonable for Americans to debate how many data centers should be built, how they should be regulated, and how environmental and community concerns should be addressed.
What the Bitcoin Policy Institute report urges, however, is transparency about who shapes those debates.
If environmental objections are genuine, they should be grounded in consistent standards applied equally to America and its global competitors. If safety concerns are raised, they should be informed by American strategic interests — not inadvertently echoing adversarial messaging.
America has navigated technological revolutions before — from nuclear energy to space exploration to the internet. Each time, domestic disagreement was vigorous but ultimately aligned behind the principle of American leadership.
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence presents another defining chapter.
As congressional investigations proceed and policymakers weigh moratoriums, export controls, energy standards, and AI governance regimes, one reality remains clear: the outcome will shape not just America’s tech sector, but the global balance of power.
For citizens, the imperative is transparency and awareness. For lawmakers, it is ensuring that U.S. AI policy is driven by American workers, American innovators, and American security interests — not by narratives nurtured in Beijing or financing structures that obscure foreign strategic alignment.
The AI Cold War may not involve missiles — but it will determine who sets the rules for the digital century.
