“By overwhelming margins, the American people prefer a Republican candidate who wants to only let data centers be built in communities that approve them by a local vote of the people, and that pay for their own power, water, and other utilities versus a Democrat candidate who wants to stop data center construction altogether, which will cause America to lose the AI race to China,” the NRSC wrote, while also urging data center developers to spend money and fix their toxic brand.

The localization of the issue is already evident in several high-profile races across the country. Republican Michigan Senate nominee Mike Rogers, who is locked in a tight race with Democrat Abdul el Sayed, has publicly supported a one-year moratorium on the construction of new data centers in his state.

In Texas, Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton has endorsed Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R-TX) decision to pause approvals for new data center projects seeking access to the state’s power grid until an audit is completed. Abbott has also issued directives to prevent data centers from using water needed by local communities or power required to operate the state’s electric grid. The governor also wants data center companies to commit to reducing electricity costs and to avoid disrupting neighborhoods, particularly rural communities.

Republicans point to Paxton as a good example of how candidates can be responsive to their state or congressional district’s needs as opposed to repeating committee talking points.

“Every district is different, every community is different, and we would just advise our candidates to do what they need to do, you know, what’s best for their community,” the GOP official told the Washington Examiner. “The White House has their messaging and what they’re pushing, but you always have to take that and do what’s best for the community.”

A second Republican strategist agreed that data center policymaking and messaging “varies per district and per member,” adding that “it’s strangely such a local issue that has become a part of a national conversation where it’s not like, from a party committee perspective, we can go out there and issue some kind of blanket guidance.”

“It’s a hyperlocal issue where candidates have the ability and the freedom to separate themselves from either the president or from the top of the ballot in their state or elsewhere,” the strategist told the Washington Examiner, citing Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI) and Rob Bresnahan (R-PA) as other good examples. “We’re obviously here for support and everything, and to advise on what might be best for their specific district.”

President Donald Trump has remained an enthusiastic supporter of data center construction, but has also explicitly given Republicans room to break with him on the issue. Trump told reporters last week that “if a Republican’s against the data center, that’s OK with me.”

“I’m only saying that if I ran a community, now there are different types of communities, but generally speaking, if I ran a community, if I was a mayor or if I was a governor in the state, I would want to have the data centers because they bring tremendous income,” Trump said.

Democrats, meanwhile, are eager to exploit the Republican balancing act. Democratic strategist Jim Manley sarcastically encouraged GOP candidates to embrace the national-security argument for data centers.

Every Republican should “lean in especially on the national security angle — that will really rally the American people to your side,” Manley said, noting his belief that opposing data centers could help Democrats win control of Congress.

TRUMP’S PRO-FAMILY AGENDA HAS WON BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, BUT ECONOMIC ANXIETY CLOUDS GOP MIDTERM HOPES

Ohio Republican strategist Mark Weaver disagreed, arguing that “the way to win the data center issue is for Republicans to speak passionately for a need to defeat China’s attempt to disadvantage America in tech dominance while also insisting on common sense guardrails to protect the environment, nearby landowners, and taxpayers.”

“It’s possible to have data centers in America if they are located in distressed areas and the wealthy companies that build them are made to pay their own way and produce benefits to local communities,” Weaver told the Washington Examiner.