Watching Wisconsin’s Secretive Data Centers
How local independent news outlets are alerting communities to the threats posed by Big Tech
OpenAI isn’t open.
The trillion-dollar artificial-intelligence firm has hidden its plans for local data centers behind a seemingly impenetrable wall of nondisclosure agreements and secrecy.
And it’s not alone. Other leading AI companies — including Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta and xAI — routinely require local and state officials to sign strict NDAs before discussing data-center impacts to local infrastructure and natural resources. The tech giants’ use of NDAs has become the latest flashpoint over data-center development in communities across the United States.
Often negotiated between government officials and the shell companies that build data centers, the NDAs are crafted to conceal the identity of the tech giants funding these sprawling energy-and-water-sucking complexes — allowing billionaire-owned tech firms to operate in the shadows.
For a time, many in the media portrayed data centers as a boon to local communities, bringing jobs and investment into regions that have fallen on hard times. But over the past year, that tale has turned. That’s due in part to the work of local independent news outlets that have engaged with local activists, organizers, community members and experts to expose the dangerous and often-illegal practices driving data-center development.
In Wisconsin, Wisconsin Watch has led much of this vital work. The outlet is a scrappy and independent nonprofit-news service dedicated to strengthening communities through engaged local journalism.
Alexander Shur / Votebeat
In the past year alone, Wisconsin Watch has published nearly 80 reports on data-center projects and politics, shedding light on concerted efforts by Big Tech and some compliant local officials to conceal the dark business of data-center development. The outlet regularly tracks multibillion-dollar proposals, local secrecy agreements and data-center impacts on state tax revenue and consumer-energy rates.
I talked with Wisconsin Watch Managing Editor Jim Malewitz, about the outlet’s coverage of the growing data-center controversy across the state.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Timothy Karr: So first up, give Pressing Issues readers a little history of Wisconsin Watch.
Jim Malewitz: We’ve been around since 2009, but we’re a very different organization today than we were when we were founded. When we started, Wisconsin Watch focused very specifically on plugging gaps in investigative journalism. Those were the biggest gaps that were emerging as newspapers and other outlets were cutting back. We were slowly producing big projects. When we dropped one, we’d then move on to the next project. We didn’t really have daily-churn coverage or things like that.
That was our model for a lot of our existence. But in the past, say, three or four years, we started to shift because we saw that the need in Wisconsin was much greater than just a gap in investigative journalism. Newspapers were going away across the state — especially being in a Gannett state. And the gaps in coverage got even bigger.
We’re still not like your typical daily. We’re not just news of the day, like car crashes and everything, but we’re offering a broader assortment of news and trying to serve up journalism that makes our communities stronger, more informed and connected. We’re leaning into the connections that we’re losing. I’ve been here for the last seven years or so, trying to lead some of that transition.
TK: In terms of filling those gaps, how do you see Wisconsin Watch’s coverage of data centers? How does Wisconsin Watch fit into the larger ecosystem of statewide coverage?
JM: It’s a good question because we’re still trying to navigate it right. We’re trying to put the pieces together if there’s a trend going on across the state. We want to elevate the issue and let communities know that this might be going on in your backyard, but it’s actually going on in backyards across Wisconsin.
We give people context to help them understand what’s happening and the path forward. We feature communities that are figuring out approaches to data centers and share best practices.
Some of these AI companies are proposing data centers in communities that usually have some media. It often seems though that they’re targeting news deserts, these small communities that might lack robust local coverage.
TK: In only the last year, I’ve seen national growth of opposition to data centers, but the earliest press reports were, if not neutral, almost favorable — noting the big money coming into communities offering jobs and local investments. But at some point, that switched. Was there a moment for Wisconsin Watch when you learned that data-center development was not just a good-for-business story, that there was more to this?
JM: I don’t know if there’s a specific moment, but I will say that we did a couple of run-of-the-mill explainers, engaging experts on the jobs question, for example. But our first big story that put our coverage on the map and then led to a bunch more tips was when we started looking at the NDAs that were signed.
We might not have been the first to break the news of the NDAs’ existence, but we were the first to publish a statewide story showing that NDAs were a feature of data-center proposals in several Wisconsin communities. We decided to lean into the transparency side, because that’s what we’re best equipped to do. We don’t advocate for things other than the right to know what’s going on in your government, which can be controversial in its own right.
It’s wild to think about how long it took that story to get to the national level to where prominent members of both parties, except maybe the president, are trying to distance themselves from AI and data centers, because this is now seen as a toxic issue.
TK: How has the issue of transparency, NDAs and secrecy impacted your reporters’ ability to cover this? Have they encountered incidents where an elected official might say, “I can’t say anything about that?”
JM: It definitely has an impact. It makes it harder to get information, and it just makes sourcing all the more important — like traditional shoe-leather reporting. I do feel that the coverage is forcing the issue. You’re probably going to see fewer NDAs and stuff like that because public officials know that it’s not popular.
I think this whole subject matter actually demonstrates the value of traditional journalism, regardless of how we produce it, whether we write it up or make a video or whatever. All the AI tools in the world can’t do that. You need people to make those connections.
TK: What does Wisconsin Watch need to continue to do this important work, in terms of public policies and support?
JM: The one thing that sticks out the most is transparency laws. Legislation could defray the huge cost of accessing public records. Since clerks can still charge $1.25 per page of records, we have to debate about whether to obtain records if it’s going to cost us $500. The cost of records is really high. And there’s really simple legislation that could limit that. If you’re sharing records electronically — and not copying pages physically — why should you pay $1.25 per page?
Nibbling around the edges, there could be more enforcement so official custodians are timely in producing records, or there could be more investment for state or local governments to hire more people to do that work. Sometimes they get overwhelmed with records requests.
We also believe in the need for anti-SLAPP laws. One of the most frivolous lawsuits that you could imagine was filed against us for an unrelated story, and even though our attorneys did a great job in getting it dismissed early because it was just a bad, bad argument — it still costs us thousands of dollars. Other outlets have had more existential lawsuits that they’ve had to fight. Just trying to get that anti-SLAPP legislation over the line. I know that’s something that they’re working on in the statehouse.
Teamwork
Lost papers. Wisconsin has lost roughly 60 percent of its newspapers since 2024. Free Press’ Wisconsin Civic Media Campaign Manager Arin Anderson writes about her firsthand experiences organizing across the state to ensure that local journalism not only survives but thrives.
Arin Anderson
Feckless efforts. Jenna Ruddock, Free Press advocacy director, writes about Big Tech’s feckless efforts to rebrand their data-center developments as communities across the country oppose these polluting, noisy and costly facilities.
Jenna Ruddock
The kicker
About the author
Timothy Karr is the senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press. He’s worked as a photojournalist, foreign correspondent and editor for major news outlets. His commentary on the media has appeared in dozens of magazines and newspapers worldwide. Follow him on Bluesky.
