Five Takes logo
Five Takes News
HomeArticlesAboutHow It Works

Get 5 perspectives. Every morning. Free.

The most polarizing story of the day, seen from Far-Left to Far-Right. You'll never read the news the same way.

No spam. Unsubscribe any time. Privacy policy

𝕏 Xin LinkedIn🦋 Bluesky
Michael
•
© 2026
•
Five Takes News - Multi-Perspective AI News Aggregator
Contact Us
•
Ethics
•
Ground News vs Five Takes
•
AllSides vs Five Takes
•
SmartNews vs Five Takes
•
Legal

technology
Published on
Monday, August 24, 2026 at 09:08 PM

By Zoe Rivera — Anarchist Desk

State and Pentagon Funnel Cash to Tech Giants

The Department of Energy awarded $500 million to seven U.S. companies to develop battery components or process critical minerals like cobalt domestically, while the Pentagon announced a $1.4 billion loan to an advanced battery start-up building a factory in Washington State. The money flows upward first. Ordinary people get the bill, the corporations get the leverage, and the state calls it policy.

Who Gets the Money

The Department of Energy’s $500 million went to seven U.S. companies, all in the name of developing battery components or processing critical minerals like cobalt domestically. The Pentagon added its own weight to the pile, announcing a $1.4 billion loan to an advanced battery start-up building a factory in Washington State. Different agencies, same arrangement. Public power gets used to grease private industry, and the people who never asked for this industrial buildout are left to live with the consequences.

The article also says states are reevaluating generous data center tax breaks as they compete to attract the tech industry. That competition isn’t some neutral economic game. It’s a race among governments to hand over more and more to corporate operators that already have the upper hand. The public sector bends itself around the needs of data centers, battery firms, and the companies that profit from both.

Who Pays for the Deal

Virginia, long considered a data center capital, imposed a consumption tax on data center energy usage to resolve a budget stalemate. That detail matters. The state didn’t suddenly discover fairness. It needed to patch a budget mess, and the energy-hungry data center sector became one more source to squeeze. The people living under these arrangements don’t get to decide whether their power grid, tax code, or land use gets reorganized around the demands of the tech industry. The apparatus decides, then asks everyone else to adjust.

The base article doesn’t describe any grassroots response, mutual aid effort, or community organizing around these decisions. What it does show is a familiar hierarchy: federal agencies direct huge sums, the Pentagon backs a battery start-up, and states scramble to keep tech firms happy while trying to cover their own financial gaps. The language of development hides the basic structure. Public institutions subsidize private expansion, then call it progress.

What They Call Development

Battery supply chains and data centers now sit at the center of this policy fight. The Department of Energy money targets battery components and critical minerals like cobalt. The Pentagon’s loan backs a factory in Washington State. States, meanwhile, are reconsidering tax breaks for data centers as they compete to attract the tech industry. Every piece points in the same direction: more state support for the infrastructure of corporate power, more public resources bent toward the needs of firms that already command enormous influence.

Virginia’s consumption tax on data center energy usage shows how these arrangements eventually hit the public in one form or another. If the state gives away tax breaks to lure the industry, it loses revenue. If it taxes the industry to fix a budget stalemate, it still leaves the underlying structure intact. The data centers stay. The power demand stays. The corporate bargaining stays. Only the accounting changes.

The article lays out a system where federal departments, the Pentagon, and state governments all move money and policy toward the same industrial priorities. The people at the bottom don’t appear as decision-makers. They appear as ratepayers, taxpayers, and the ones expected to absorb the costs when the machinery of growth needs another subsidy, another loan, or another tax adjustment.

Reviewed by the editorial desk — August 24, 2026
Last updated August 24, 2026

Previous Article

Treasury Tightens Economic Noose on Iran

Next Article

Kenya Hunts Suspects as 18 Elephants Die
← Back to articles