Data Centers Target 24,000 Acres of Federal Land

At least 35 data center-related applications covering more than 24,000 acres of U.S. federal land are pending or active across six Western states, according to an analysis by the Center for Western Priorities. The proposed projects put federal land and its management squarely in the path of an industry seeking room for AI infrastructure, as the Trump administration seeks to open public lands to a broader range of industrial uses.

Who Controls the Land

Bureau of Land Management records show at least 17 proposed data center campuses and 13 related infrastructure projects in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming, the study said. Those infrastructure projects include transmission lines, pipelines, telecommunications facilities and access roads. The campuses are only part of the footprint: applications also include the connections and routes needed to support development.

The 35-plus applications cover more than 24,000 acres. They’re pending or active, and the campuses are proposed; the figures describe applications and proposals, not completed projects. That distinction matters. Federal land is under consideration for a broad industrial buildout, but the available account doesn’t say which applications may ultimately win approval or what conditions could apply.

The federal government’s role is central. The records come from the Bureau of Land Management, and the administration says it wants public lands available for a wider range of industrial uses, including energy, mining and technology projects. That’s the machinery of power in plain view: federal institutions decide how to use the land, while applicants seek access to a resource held under federal management.

The Infrastructure Behind the Campuses

A map of planned projects includes several applications for infrastructure tied to a Prometheus Hyperscale facility in Wyoming. It also includes projects by developer Copia Power in Arizona, Nevada and Idaho, among others. The map connects campus proposals to the supporting projects, showing that applications reach beyond buildings to transmission lines, pipelines, telecommunications facilities and access roads.

The study’s figures point to industry interest in developing AI infrastructure on federal land. They don’t identify specific impacts on nearby residents, describe any community response, or report who would benefit from the projects. The account doesn’t supply those details, even as the acreage and range of proposed infrastructure make clear the scale of the land sought.

The report describes no grassroots organizing, mutual aid or direct action. There’s no election or legislative proposal presented as an alternative to the federal land-use process, either. The account also provides no information about nonprofit funding or services; it identifies the Center for Western Priorities as the conservation group whose analysis supplied the figures.

The Official Silence

BLM officials weren’t immediately available for comment. The agency’s records establish the count of proposed campuses and related infrastructure projects, but the report includes no response from the officials who oversee those records. The applications, the federal land and the administration’s push for broader industrial use remain the hard facts on the table. The people who control the process haven’t yet answered questions about it.