Lead the Future. Protect Texas.

Texas should set the terms for its AI economy, not surrender its future to it.

Artificial intelligence offers Texas an extraordinary opportunity. It can accelerate medical research, strengthen national security, improve productivity, create new industries, support entrepreneurs, and open new career pathways for Texans. We should pursue those opportunities.

But we must also recognize that the infrastructure powering AI is not without cost. Data centers require land, electricity, water, transmission capacity and public infrastructure. Their development can affect agricultural operations, local communities, household utility costs and the long-term use of Texas's natural resources.

The question is not whether Texas should participate in the AI revolution.

The question is how much to build, where to build it, who benefits, who pays, and who sets the terms.

Texas must not become the Wild West of data-center development, a place where we pay to allow private outside interests to secure enormous resources, make empty promises about future benefits and then leave communities to absorb the consequences.

We can welcome innovation without surrendering our sound judgment. We can welcome investment without selling out the state by deciding to choose prudence and prioritize people over greed.

The future of Texas must be determined by what serves Texas, not simply by what serves the next big investor.

1. TEXAS-FIRST: GROWTH WITHIN BOUNDS

I would support setting aside designated lands to preserve the future expansion of farmlands and other activities vital to the Texas economy outside of data center expansion. 

Texas has built its strength through energy, agriculture, manufacturing, trade, technology, ranching and entrepreneurship. These industries are not relics of the past. They are foundations of our prosperity and important contributors to our economic independence.

AI and data centers can strengthen that foundation. But unchecked expansion places new pressure on the resources those industries depend upon. Texas has approximately 125 million acres of farmland and a vast agricultural economy. Our land supports cattle, crops, timber, rural communities, food production, wildlife and generations of family-owned operations. We must not treat that land as vacant space waiting for the next industrial development. It’s valued space that should be set aside to secure our future. Land is an economic asset, a productive resource and a part of Texas's heritage.

Texas should establish a statewide framework for responsible data-center siting that considers:

• Agricultural productivity and long-term food production.

• Water availability and competing regional demands.

• Existing and planned electricity capacity.

• The cost of new transmission and generation.

• Impacts on nearby residents and local infrastructure.

• Environmental conditions and long-term land use.

• The availability of more suitable industrial sites.

• The cumulative impact of multiple projects in the same region.

Projects should be directed toward appropriate locations with adequate infrastructure, not simply toward locations where land is available and regulatory oversight is weakest.

Texas should also identify agricultural and ecologically sensitive areas where industrial development warrants heightened review or restrictions.

A measured approach to expansion

I would support limiting a grand total number of data centers. Texas does not need to approve every proposed data center to remain a leader in AI.

The state should complete independent assessments of the proposed development pipeline, actual computing demand, electricity availability, water resources and cumulative community impacts before authorizing additional large-scale expansion.

Where current reviews reveal material gaps, new approvals and grid connections should be paused until those gaps are resolved. Any temporary pause should have clear criteria for completion, transparent findings and enforceable conditions for proceeding.

After that review, Texas should permit growth that it can responsibly support and limit or reject projects that cannot demonstrate a sufficient public benefit or that place unacceptable burdens on communities and essential industries.

The objective is not to stop progress. It is to make deliberate decisions about which progress serves Texas.

2. AI LEADERSHIP WITHOUT THE POLITICS OF PANIC

We should not jeopardize Texas's long-term interests in the name of winning a race whose outcome depends on much more than the number of buildings we construct. 

Americans are frequently told that if we do not build as many data centers as possible, China will win the AI race. That argument deserves more scrutiny.

The United States remains a global AI leader, with substantial advantages in private investment and the development of leading models. But China has made significant advances, and the performance gap between top American and Chinese models has narrowed considerably.

We should take that competition seriously. But national competition is not a justification for unlimited domestic expansion. Building more facilities does not automatically mean building better AI, producing more valuable innovations or securing a lasting strategic advantage. The United States must also invest in research, semiconductor supply chains, skilled workers, cybersecurity, energy infrastructure and the companies that turn discoveries into useful products.

Texas should help lead that effort. But we should distinguish between infrastructure that serves a demonstrated strategic need and projects driven primarily by speculative demand, investor expectations or the desire to capture a temporary market advantage. The goal is to build the computing capacity America needs, in locations that can support it, under terms that protect the public and strengthen our national capabilities.

3. TEXAS SOVEREIGNTY: OUTSIDE INVESTMENT, TEXAS DECISIONS

I would support requiring appropriate ownership disclosure, security review and enforceable safeguards for projects that present material risks. 

Texas welcomes investment from across America and around the world. Outside capital can create jobs, support research, expand industries and bring valuable expertise to our state. But welcoming investment does not mean surrendering control over Texas's priorities.

When a private company seeks access to enormous quantities of electricity, water, land or publicly supported infrastructure, Texans have a legitimate interest in understanding the company's ownership, financing, obligations and plans. The current Texas administration has waited far too long to ask the following questions which should have been answered in full before breaking any ground:

• Who ultimately owns or controls the project?

• Who provides the capital?

• Who will operate the facility?

• Who will have access to its computing infrastructure and sensitive data?

• What public incentives or infrastructure commitments are involved?

• What happens if the project changes ownership, fails to deliver promised benefits or places an unexpected burden on the community?

These questions are especially important when projects involve foreign ownership, foreign state-linked entities, sensitive technologies or infrastructure with national-security implications. Sensitive infrastructure should not become vulnerable to foreign coercion, opaque control or arrangements that undermine legitimate national-security requirements.

The principle is straightforward:

Private companies may bring capital to Texas. They do not get to determine Texas's future.

Texas must retain the ability to decide how its land, water, electricity and public resources are used, and to establish clear conditions for development within its jurisdiction.

4. TRANSPARENCY BEFORE APPROVAL

I would support measures that respect a level of confidentiality, but require transparency around the basic public costs, resource demands or terms of a publicly supported project. I would also work for measures that require the maintenence of a publicly accessible reporting system that allows residents, local governments, regulators and independent researchers to compare promised benefits with actual results.

Texans should not have to rely on a company's promotional announcement to understand the consequences of a major development.

Before a large data-center project receives material public incentives, state approvals or commitments of public infrastructure, the public should have access to meaningful information about:

• Ultimate beneficial ownership and project control.

• Proposed capital investment and financing.

• Expected construction and permanent employment.

• Expected wages and workforce requirements.

• Projected and actual electricity consumption.

• Water sources, projected use and conservation measures.

• Required generation, transmission and other infrastructure.

• Public incentives, tax abatements and other commitments.

• Expected tax revenue and local economic benefits.

• Environmental and agricultural impacts.

• Contractual commitments and enforcement mechanisms.

• Contingencies if the project is delayed, downsized or abandoned.

Legitimate trade secrets and sensitive security information can receive appropriate protection. But confidentiality should not be used to conceal. Transparency is not an obstacle to responsible business. It is a condition of public trust.

5. ELECTRICITY: NO HIDDEN BILL FOR TEXANS

Trillion dollar companies don’t need citizens to pay their energy bills.

AI requires substantial computing power, and data centers create extraordinary new demands on the electric grid. Large data-center projects should bear the majority of the costs they create, including necessary generation, transmission, interconnection, reliability and grid upgrades. These costs should also be transparent.

Texas should build the energy infrastructure needed for a growing economy. But existing households, small businesses, farms and manufacturers should not be left to subsidize the infrastructure required by private development. They must participate in the build out of grids that meet their demands. Regulators should evaluate whether proposed projects can be served without undermining grid reliability or shifting unreasonable costs to existing customers. They should also examine whether promised demand is realistic, whether projects will actually use the capacity they reserve, and what consequences should follow when developers hold scarce grid capacity without delivering.

Texas should encourage additional generation, storage, efficiency and innovative energy solutions where they meet demonstrated needs. But new energy infrastructure should be evaluated on its full cost, reliability, environmental impact and value to the wider Texas economy.

The standard should be clear: No hidden subsidies. No unchecked commitments. No assumption that Texans must absorb the bill. We should measure the impact on residential customers, small businesses, agriculture and industrial users and make the results public.

6. WATER: PROTECT A RESOURCE TEXAS CANNOT TAKE FOR GRANTED

I support making specific demands on how data centers retrieve and use water. Texas should mandate closed-loop cooling, water-efficient designs, reclaimed water and other appropriate technologies that reduce competition with drinking-water supplies and agricultural needs. We know what works best and harms the least and those things should be non-negotiable.

If a region cannot reliably support additional industrial water demand without threatening essential uses, that constraint must carry real weight in the approval decision. Community members should have a say in this process. Texas’s water supply is essential to families, farms, ranches, cities, manufacturing and future growth. Data centers must be planned around the water Texas can responsibly provide, not around the assumption that additional supply will always be available. Major projects should disclose projected and actual water use, identify their sources, explain their cooling systems and demonstrate how they will operate during drought and other supply constraints.

Where a project requires new water infrastructure, the developer should pay an appropriate share of the costs it creates. Water authorities should assess cumulative demand across entire watersheds and service areas, not simply evaluate each project in isolation. There must be consequences on record for companies who violate the water terms.

Economic development cannot be sustainable if it compromises the resources that make economic activity possible.

7. LAND: PRESERVE THE INDUSTRIES THAT FEED AND SUSTAIN TEXAS

I support permanently preserving a specified amount of land not to be touched by data center development. Texas should not measure the value of land solely by the price a technology company is willing to pay for it.

Agricultural land produces food, supports livestock, sustains rural communities, preserves family businesses and contributes to the state's economic independence. It can also support wildlife, open space and other valuable functions.

Data-center development can create a different kind of economic activity, but it can also permanently change how land is used. That trade-off deserves deliberate consideration. Texas should evaluate major projects against the long-term value of alternative land uses, including agriculture, ranching, manufacturing and other industries that already sustain the state.

We should encourage appropriate redevelopment of industrial sites and locations with existing infrastructure where feasible, rather than allowing the search for cheap land to drive development into productive agricultural areas. Land-use decisions should consider cumulative effects on agricultural operations, rural roads, housing, water, electricity and neighboring communities.

Property owners should retain their rights to make lawful decisions about their land. At the same time, the state and local authorities should have effective tools to manage development impacts and protect legitimate public interests.

Texas can welcome new industries without sacrificing the industries that made Texas strong.

8. JOBS: BUILD A TEXAS WORKFORCE, NOT JUST TEXAS FACILITIES

I support setting permanent job quotas that maximize data center impact on job creation. I would also support setting a salary floor so that data center workers are not underpaid by the world’s richest companies. I would work to see community partnerships created that help assure that local workers and students will feed into the job and managerial pipeline of the data centers coming to their communities. 

In theory, data centers create construction work and require skilled employees to operate and maintain their systems. AI can also create new careers and make existing businesses more productive. But the number of permanent jobs at a facility has been much smaller than the number of temporary construction jobs or the scale of the announced investment. Texans are currently being sold a half truth where job creation is concerned and we need to hold incoming companies to their promises. Texas should therefore judge employment claims carefully and set quotas and percentages for the number of permanent jobs.

Major publicly supported projects should report expected construction employment, permanent jobs, wages, local hiring, training commitments and opportunities for career advancement. Where appropriate, developers should partner with Texas community colleges, universities, apprenticeship programs and technical schools to build pipelines for electricians, engineers, cooling-system technicians, cybersecurity professionals, network specialists and other skilled workers. 

We should also prepare Texans for the broader economic effects of AI, including jobs that may change or disappear as businesses adopt new tools. Companies should offer free training with industry-level certification to ensure that the majority of their workforce can be supplied locally into the future.

The objective is not simply to bring computing infrastructure to Texas. It is to ensure Texans have opportunities to build, maintain, use and improve the technology and to possibly start companies of their own.

A technology investment should create opportunities for as many Texans possible, not merely occupy Texas land.

9. AI SHOULD STRENGTHEN TEXAS BUSINESSES AND RESEARCH

Our caution about data-center expansion must not obscure the enormous potential of AI itself.

AI can help small businesses compete, help physicians and researchers accelerate discovery, improve manufacturing, support agriculture, strengthen cybersecurity and create new products and industries. Texas should invest in the capabilities that turn AI into broad economic value.

That includes research at Texas universities, commercialization, semiconductor and advanced manufacturing capacity, cybersecurity, technical education, startup development and access to computing tools for small businesses and independent researchers.

We should strengthen the pathway from:

Research → Invention → Startup → Investment → Product → Company → Jobs.

We should also explore how AI can help Texas agriculture use water more efficiently, improve crop and livestock management, detect disease, forecast weather impacts and strengthen productivity. The point is to build an AI economy that extends beyond the companies operating the largest facilities.

Texas should be a place that develops and uses AI not merely a place that, at best, houses the infrastructure and, at worst, costs communities their land, their water, and their peace at home.

10. A TEXAS-FIRST TECHNOLOGY SCORECARD

I would lead the charge for the creation of a Texas-First scorecard that evaluates every major publicly supported data-center project against a common set of transparent measures. In order of priority, community impact/public cost, resource impact/capacity, and economic return would be measured. While economic gain for Texas is desired, money, and especially not greed, cannot be the only deciding factor.

Economic return

• Actual private investment.

• Permanent jobs and wages.

• Construction employment.

• Tax revenue.

• Local business activity.

• Research and innovation.

• New companies and follow-on investment.

Public cost

• Tax incentives and abatements.

• Grants and public commitments.

• Grid and transmission costs.

• Water and other infrastructure costs.

• Public services required by the project.

Resource impact

• Actual electricity consumption.

• Water consumption and source.

• Grid reliability and peak-demand effects.

• Land converted from agricultural or other uses.

• Local environmental and infrastructure impacts.

Texas capacity

• Training and apprenticeship participation.

• Partnerships with Texas institutions.

• Research and commercialization.

• Opportunities for Texas suppliers.

• Technology development and skilled career pathways.

Promises should be compared with results after construction and during operation. Incentives should include enforceable terms, clawbacks where appropriate and meaningful consequences for failure to meet commitments. Independent evaluation should inform whether a project or incentive is expanded, modified, renewed or discontinued.

If public resources are committed, the public should be able to see what they received in return.

11. A RESPONSIBLE PATH FORWARD

Texas has already begun confronting the consequences of rapid data-center growth. The state's September 2026 pause on new data-center permits pending an audit illustrates why reliable information about grid demand, water and infrastructure must come before further commitments.

That review should have come first, and not as a pacifier before the midterm elections. Nevertheless, we must decide now that it will lead to a durable framework or else it will have only served as a temporary pause followed by business as usual.

Texas must:

1. Complete an independent assessment of proposed data-center demand and the state's capacity to serve it.

2. Publish meaningful information about project ownership, resource use, infrastructure costs and public incentives.

3. Establish clear siting, water, electricity, security and community-impact standards.

4. Limit additional approvals and connections to projects that meet demonstrated needs and can be supported responsibly.

5. Protect agricultural productivity and other essential land uses in regional planning.

6. Require developers to bear an appropriate share of the costs they impose.

7. Monitor actual performance and enforce commitments.

8. Reassess the pace of expansion as technology, demand and resource conditions change.

These decisions should be informed by independent evidence, public input and the long-term interests of Texas, not solely by the forecasts of companies seeking approval or the fears of those warning that America must build without limits to compete with China.

We should build what we need, where it makes sense, on terms that serve the people of Texas first.