Trump says tech giants, not consumers, must pay higher electricity costs tied to AI data centers

[midian182]

What just happened? In addition to driving up the price of DRAM and other PC components, another reason AI data centers are getting a lot of hate is their negative effect on electricity prices. But President Donald Trump says that his administration is working with major US tech companies to ensure Americans don't "pick up the tab."

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump wrote that he never wants Americans to pay higher electricity bills because of data centers. As such, the tech giants that build them must "pay their way."

The post goes on to state that the first company the administration is working with is Microsoft. Trump says the Redmond firm will make major changes beginning this week.

"We are the "HOTTEST" Country in the World, and Number One in AI. Data Centers are key to that boom and keeping Americans FREE and SECURE but the big Technology Companies who build them must "pay their own way." Thank you, and congratulations to Microsoft," he added.

Microsoft has not responded to requests for comment on Trump's post. However, President and Vice Chairman Brad Smith is scheduled to make an announcement at an event in Washington later today (January 13), when he may speak about the proposal.

In a statement announcing the event, Microsoft said that as America enters a new era of opportunity shaped by the power of AI, there are fundamental questions being raised, including who should bear the cost of critical AI infrastructure.

Surging electricity prices are one of many reasons why most people don't share the same love for generative AI as the CEOs invested in the industry – something Nvidia's Jensen Huang recently complained about.

US power prices have risen faster than the rate of inflation as the cost of living keeps increasing. In December, three senators sent letters to Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Equinix, Digital Realty, and CoreWeave, raising concerns that data center growth has coincided with dramatic increases in local utility rates. They cited a study finding that electricity prices have risen by as much as 267% over the past five years in areas located near significant data center activity.

According to the letters, power prices often surge when utilities build new infrastructure to meet the massive, sustained electricity loads demanded by data centers, which in some regions "consume as much power as an entire city."

In October, Microsoft canceled plans to build a data center in Caledonia, Wisconsin, after residents and elected officials objected. While the reasons for these objections were not listed, increased electricity bills and a reduction in power quality in the area were doubtlessly major factors. The Wisconsin location was one of at least 25 data center projects canceled in the US last year.

Permalink to story:

Trump says tech giants, not consumers, must pay higher electricity costs tied to AI data centers

 

[JimF1]

As they should.

 

[ZedRM]

Wow. He's doing something right and good? Well ok. Bravo! Hopefully more good things come from the guy.

 

[bandit8623]

Wow. He's doing something right and good? Well ok. Bravo! Hopefully more good things come from the guy.

I think there are plenty of good things. Just dingle berries can't get over it orange man bad syndrome.

 

[NumberNine]

Hopefully this is what it claims to be, but I'm pretty cynical from decades of exposure to reality. My concern is that loopholes can and will be lobbied. "A favor for a favor? Sure, help yourself to some more of the public's resources." Do you think Microsoft would share their power output with the public grid?
... Me neither.

 

[Dr Roboto]

Trump says a lot of things. The question is can you believe him or not. Either way, it is more of the rest of the politicians that are in the big tech lobbyist's pockets (dems and repubs). You will see a bunch of hand waving in public, but behind closed doors politicians all cater to the $$$

 

[Theinsanegamer]

He's absolutely right. RAM companies should have done the same, stop overcharging consumers, put ALL that price gouging on the venture techbros buring billions a day to play pretend. If AI proports to replace so many jobs, they should be paying the price of ripping society in half.

Between this, going after blackrock's home ownership, and maduro, 2026 is off to a hell of a start.

 

[3volv3d]

I think there are plenty of good things. Just dingle berries can't get over it orange man bad syndrome.

Lmfao blinded but that orange skin much .
This article for instance none of it came from him, and if they have they removed the 4 hours extra of magnets are great incoherent ramblings of an old man.

Are you guys waiting for him to pale from orange to old yella, then take him out. Noem can shoot puppies and animals from 10 paces.

If you charge companies for anything, they pass that bill on to the consumers to make it back.

Tariffs. See how he knows fk all about tariffs this is identical in its implication.

Even the person writing the article must know they just wasted their time reporting anything that guy says.

 

[Watzupken]

Unfortunately, it's not just electricity. It's causing shortages of all kinds, water, electricity, raw material, food, etc.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Lmfao blinded but that orange skin much .
This article for instance none of it came from him, and if they have they removed the 4 hours extra of magnets are great incoherent ramblings of an old man.

Are you guys waiting for him to pale from orange to old yella, then take him out. Noem can shoot puppies and animals from 10 paces.

If you charge companies for anything, they pass that bill on to the consumers to make it back.

Tariffs. See how he knows fk all about tariffs this is identical in its implication.

Even the person writing the article must know they just wasted their time reporting anything that guy says.

You can dislike Trump all you want, that doesn’t make every statement automatically wrong or incoherent.

The point being made isn’t complicated. The companies building and profiting from massive AI infrastructure should absorb more of the upfront cost instead of socializing it to consumers and taxpayers by default. That already happens in plenty of industries. Cloud providers, utilities, telecom, and even oil and gas all treat capital expenditure as part of doing business, not an automatic surcharge on end users.

“Companies always pass costs to consumers” is a lazy talking point. They pass costs when they can, not when competition, regulation, or margin pressure prevents it. That’s basic economics, not a gotcha.

And no, this isn’t tariffs 2.0. Tariffs are blunt trade taxes. Infrastructure cost allocation and investment responsibility are a completely different policy lever. Conflating the two just shows you’re arguing vibes, not substance.

You don’t have to like the messenger, but pretending every article or policy discussion is pointless because “orange man bad” isn’t analysis. It’s just noise and takes away any meaningful discussion.

 

[seeprime]

Except when cities sell their souls to datacenters out of fear of becoming irrelevant.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

AI datacenters that have infinite budgets for compute should not only pay for the electricity but also all of the infrastructure needed to get it to them.

However: 1) Trump posting on social is meaningless and 2) these rate increases are because state and local politicians sold out to the AI companies.

Local politicians have given these company massive tax breaks on top of special electrical pricing believing they can claim they "created jobs" in the next election. Yeah, a handful of IT jobs is totally worth the benefits thrown at the company. /s

 

[TheBigT42]

All politicians lie 50% of the time. It doesn't matter what party they are.

“One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

Douglas Adams

 

[trents]

Another reason to be cautious about the EV push. It would be putting even more strain on the electrical power infrastructure and would put the increase in utility bills on steroids. It may come down to a push n' shove battle between AI and EV.

 

[JMGuy]

All politicians lie 50% of the time. It doesn't matter what party they are.

“One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

Douglas Adams

Gonna have to disagree. People, politics, and governance are orders of magnitude more complex than this.

Frankly, “all politicians lie” really cannot be taken as a serious claim. That is itself a political spin; lying is not a coin flip. Truthfulness varies by person, perspective, and, more importantly, incentives. It also changes moment to moment. Saying they’re all the same really just lowers accountability and attempts to flatten reality into a single dimension.

Also, the Douglas Adams quote attempts to sneak in an unproven assumption because it sounds smart—there is no solid evidence to suggest that less ambitious, “wiser” people would actually govern better. Ambition isn’t just ego; it’s also drive, persistence, and the ability to push things through resistant systems. Low-ambition leaders often just drift or get captured by those who are more ambitious.

What political science actually shows is that institutions matter more than character. Strong checks, transparency, and real consequences better constrain bad actors than weak systems with “good” people.

I think the best anyone can realistically say is that ambition raises the stakes; increasing both big wins and big failures. Adams’ quote is great satire—not a serious theory of real-world governance.

 

[Au Contraire]

Hopefully this is what it claims to be, but I'm pretty cynical from decades of exposure to reality. My concern is that loopholes can and will be lobbied. "A favor for a favor? Sure, help yourself to some more of the public's resources." Do you think Microsoft would share their power output with the public grid?
... Me neither.

Share their OUTPUT ? When the issue is they do not have enough INPUT ?

 

[Che Cazzo]

That's the same genius who raised EVERYTHING's prices through his amazing economic plan, aka stupid tariffs! And now....he is now asking his pals at tech companies to pay?? You know, the same tech Bros who spent / gave him billions to elect him, build his ball room, etc!!

2 things:
- It's just another TACO brain fart to soothe the restless peasantry
- Earth to to orange: Prices for electric have ALREADY gone up BIGLY!! Now what??

Another "genius" plan swallowed up by his adoring base.

 

[wiyosaya]

I think there are plenty of good things. Just dingle berries can't get over it orange man bad syndrome.

And there are those that can't just get over Trump Disciple Syndrome.

You can dislike Trump all you want, that doesn’t make every statement automatically wrong or incoherent.

Trump, IMO, does that well enough himself. One day he says one thing and the next day he says something that is the complete opposite.

The point being made isn’t complicated. The companies building and profiting from massive AI infrastructure should absorb more of the upfront cost instead of socializing it to consumers and taxpayers by default. That already happens in plenty of industries. Cloud providers, utilities, telecom, and even oil and gas all treat capital expenditure as part of doing business, not an automatic surcharge on end users.

True. But the question is can he actually do something about it? Personally, I don't think so. Just like the Exxon CEO told him Venezuelan oil is too expensive and Exxon will not invest in it.

“Companies always pass costs to consumers” is a lazy talking point. They pass costs when they can, not when competition, regulation, or margin pressure prevents it. That’s basic economics, not a gotcha.

In other words, if the only way that they cannot pass along costs to consumers is because it's against the law. And if it is against the law, they will find loopholes so that they can pass the costs on to consumers.

Gen 1 Trump said he'd do something about infrastructure. He did nothing. It looks like Gen 2 Trump will also do nothing about infrastructure except he's trying to cancel renewable energy projects; in other words, he's doing nothing productive for infrastructure.

And no, this isn’t tariffs 2.0. Tariffs are blunt trade taxes. Infrastructure cost allocation and investment responsibility are a completely different policy lever. Conflating the two just shows you’re arguing vibes, not substance.

Maybe Trump can use tariff revenue to improve infrastructure, but he won't.

You don’t have to like the messenger, but pretending every article or policy discussion is pointless because “orange man bad” isn’t analysis. It’s just noise and takes away any meaningful discussion.

If Trump didn't change his mind so often, I would, perhaps, agree. Unfortunately, IMO, Trump has little credibility when it comes to his proclamations. IMO, all he's doing with this is trying to get the latest sound bite into the air waves.

 

[netman]

"Trump says tech giants, not consumers, must pay higher electricity costs tied to AI data centers"

Trump always talks out od his arse...!

 

[sks9988]

As much as I dislike agreeing with anything uttered by the demented orange goblin skidstain, he is correct in this one instance. Not that he actually means what he is saying, though, as he likely just wants them to begin throwing monetary support his way so he can flip and support them.

The ENTIRE cost of AI implementation and infrastructure (including the power it needs to operate) should be borne solely by both the AI industry and its product customers, not by the public at large. They should price all their products appropriately to cover all the costs.

The AI industry won't support this, obviously, as they have yet to demonstrate the ability to produce a profit off anything they produce even when the power costs are shared by the public at large. They'll all be out of business in short order if they have to actually pay entirely for their products.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

He's absolutely right. RAM companies should have done the same, stop overcharging consumers, put ALL that price gouging on the venture techbros buring billions a day to play pretend. If AI proports to replace so many jobs, they should be paying the price of ripping society in half.

Between this, going after blackrock's home ownership, and maduro, 2026 is off to a hell of a start.

Simply limiting the price when there's a shortage doesn't solve anything. In fact it makes the problem worse. With power, that would mean there are blackouts as there's not enough power supply to meet the demand. Whether you believe it or not, power usage is affected by increasing prices.

With RAM, it would mean it's sold out. But as you saw from fixed PS5 and Xbox Series X prices, this caused even more demand as scalpers took all of the demand and profit themselves. Would you rather have a guaranteed official way to buy RAM at a higher price, or unreliable, backdoor ways to buy RAM still at a higher price that's sketchy as hell? Personally I'm in favor of following market economics.

The ENTIRE cost of AI implementation and infrastructure (including the power it needs to operate) should be borne solely by both the AI industry and its product customers, not by the public at large. They should price all their products appropriately to cover all the costs.

Keep in mind that the grid's power output is limited and just paying a higher price for it doesn't instantly increase the grid's power output. Power generation infrastructure needs to be built before more power can be created. That's what I would be in favor of making AI companies do. And they are doing so to some degree.

 

[Alfatawi Mendel]

Jesus wept. There are still some people living in Trumps LA-LA land, who think that cost of living is cheaper than it was when the bloated fool came to power v.2.
Of course the poorest will pay for it. Just like they are paying for his tax cuts to the oligarchs, and the sudden increase in the wealth of his nearest and dearest.
The man is a gangster.

 

[TheBigT42]

Gonna have to disagree. People, politics, and governance are orders of magnitude more complex than this.

Frankly, “all politicians lie” really cannot be taken as a serious claim. That is itself a political spin; lying is not a coin flip. Truthfulness varies by person, perspective, and, more importantly, incentives. It also changes moment to moment. Saying they’re all the same really just lowers accountability and attempts to flatten reality into a single dimension.

Also, the Douglas Adams quote attempts to sneak in an unproven assumption because it sounds smart—there is no solid evidence to suggest that less ambitious, “wiser” people would actually govern better. Ambition isn’t just ego; it’s also drive, persistence, and the ability to push things through resistant systems. Low-ambition leaders often just drift or get captured by those who are more ambitious.

What political science actually shows is that institutions matter more than character. Strong checks, transparency, and real consequences better constrain bad actors than weak systems with “good” people.

I think the best anyone can realistically say is that ambition raises the stakes; increasing both big wins and big failures. Adams’ quote is great satire—not a serious theory of real-world governance.

Get a life...it was a joke.

But seriously. If you believe either party (or politician) has your best interest you are sadly mistaken. They are only in it for themselves.

 

[Loadedaxe]

And there are those that can't just get over Trump Disciple Syndrome.

Trump, IMO, does that well enough himself. One day he says one thing and the next day he says something that is the complete opposite.

True. But the question is can he actually do something about it? Personally, I don't think so. Just like the Exxon CEO told him Venezuelan oil is too expensive and Exxon will not invest in it.

In other words, if the only way that they cannot pass along costs to consumers is because it's against the law. And if it is against the law, they will find loopholes so that they can pass the costs on to consumers.

Gen 1 Trump said he'd do something about infrastructure. He did nothing. It looks like Gen 2 Trump will also do nothing about infrastructure except he's trying to cancel renewable energy projects; in other words, he's doing nothing productive for infrastructure.

Maybe Trump can use tariff revenue to improve infrastructure, but he won't.

If Trump didn't change his mind so often, I would, perhaps, agree. Unfortunately, IMO, Trump has little credibility when it comes to his proclamations. IMO, all he's doing with this is trying to get the latest sound bite into the air waves.

You’re mixing up two separate arguments...whether Trump can do it, and whether the idea itself is valid. Those aren’t the same thing. Saying he probably won’t doesn’t automatically make the policy discussion meaningless.

Governments influence infrastructure investment all the time without directly ordering CEOs around. Permitting, tax credits, depreciation rules, power pricing, public private partnerships, zoning, grid access, antitrust pressure, and procurement contracts all shape who eats costs and who doesn’t. The Exxon example actually proves that point. Oil majors invest where the incentives and risks make sense. That’s exactly why policy matters.

The claim that the only way companies don’t pass costs to consumers is if it’s illegal is just not true. Competitive pressure, oversupply, fixed price contracts, long term enterprise agreements, and margin tradeoffs all limit pass through. Hyperscalers already absorb massive capex without immediately raising prices because market share matters more than short term margin.

On infrastructure, Trump 1.0 didn’t deliver a grand infrastructure bill, but that doesn’t mean nothing happened or that nothing can happen now. Grid build out, data center permitting, and energy interconnects are much more targeted problems than “infrastructure week” ever was. Treating it as all or nothing is a false frame.

You can argue Trump lacks credibility. I even partially agree. But dismissing every statement as just a sound bite avoids engaging with the actual mechanics of AI infrastructure, which are becoming a real economic bottleneck regardless of who’s in office.

Politics isn’t a moral cheat code or a team sport. It’s an even playing field. Disliking one side doesn’t automatically make the other side wrong, and it definitely doesn’t make you right by default. Skepticism is reasonable, I am right there with you. Writing off the entire discussion as pointless because you don’t trust the speaker isn’t.

 

[BobHome]

Wow. He's doing something right and good? Well ok. Bravo! Hopefully more good things come from the guy.

Well, this shows me that this real estate broker doesn't understand how software and manufacturing business work. Yeah, right, take the money that goes to the higher-ups and stockholders to pay for their stuff? Not!!! <sigh>