Top executives at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other leading artificial intelligence companies are quietly preparing for the political and social fallout of a so-called “catastrophic AI event,” according to Axios. While OpenAI insists these scenarios are not inevitable, industry insiders told Axios they expect one within the next six to twelve months.
The planning reportedly centers on educating Congress and shaping post-crisis legislation. But an equally urgent question is being overlooked: If a backlash erupts, what happens to the physical infrastructure of AI?
Data centers have become foundational to the American economy and national security, as the U.S. competes with China for AI dominance. Yet these facilities are highly concentrated, which boosts efficiency but also increases fragility. Loudoun County, Virginia, hosts more than 250 data centers; on July 22, a single transmission line fault in Northern Virginia caused 3,800 megawatts of data center load to drop, with effects felt as far as Chicago. If an accident can do that, a deliberate attack could be far worse.
There are early signs of an anti-AI revolt. In April, someone fired more than a dozen rounds into the home of an Indianapolis city councilor who had supported a local data center, leaving a note reading “No data centers.” That same month, the home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was attacked twice—first with a Molotov cocktail and then with gunfire. The man charged in the firebombing cited AI’s risk of human extinction, according to the criminal complaint.
The AI industry has added to the tension with its own warnings. In 2023, leaders of top AI companies signed a statement comparing AI’s extinction risk to nuclear war; later, Dario Amodei warned of mass unemployment. When the companies building AI describe it as catastrophically dangerous and economically displacing, some people will conclude they are obligated to stop it. A catastrophic event would enlarge that group overnight.
Attacks on infrastructure are an old extremist ambition. “The Turner Diaries,” the 1978 neo-Nazi novel that inspired the Oklahoma City bombing, depicts strikes on computer systems, power stations, and utilities as a way to bring down the government. In 2021, the FBI arrested a Texas man who plotted to bomb an Amazon data center in Virginia, hoping to cripple the internet. In 2022, gunmen attacked two electrical substations in North Carolina, leaving tens of thousands without power for days.
While animus toward AI data centers is largely organic, adversaries are working to inflame tensions. In August, X reported that roughly 200 accounts connected to a Chinese bot farm were amplifying narratives encouraging Americans to oppose data centers. The New York Times reported that a Chinese state-owned newspaper published a satellite image of a data center in Virginia, claiming AI posed a threat to Americans’ physical and financial health. These efforts cost adversaries little, while adding fuel to a debate where some have turned to violence.
Drones have also made physical attacks more accessible—and data centers are increasingly seen as a target. Earlier this year, Iranian drone strikes damaged Amazon Web Services data centers in the United Arab Emirates. This month, Ukrainian drones hit a major data center operated by Yandex, Russia’s leading AI company, forcing it to fully suspend operations. Research published in June documented Chinese vendors advertising drones rigged with drop munitions and fiber-optic guidance systems immune to jamming on TikTok and Instagram. An inexpensive hobbyist drone carrying a small charge can disable power and cooling systems that cost millions of dollars and take months to replace.
Growing public animus, adversaries working to inflame it, and inexpensive drones that are easily weaponized are converging on facilities whose physical security falls in a gray area. Data centers are classed as part of the information technology sector, but the framework has not kept pace with their growing strategic importance and rapidly changing threat environment.
Washington must respond on three fronts. First, the president should direct the secretary of Homeland Security to establish a dedicated physical-security strategy for these facilities, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency conducting a 90-day assessment of threats and exposure. Second, Congress should require operators to share information with federal and local agencies—a plot against a data center or a drone over a substation does no good if it stays inside a company’s security office. Third, Congress should fund the authority it has already given to local law enforcement to defend against drone threats. The Safer Skies Act requires specialized certification and training through the FBI’s National Counter-UAS Training Center in Alabama, the only facility that can issue the credential, which has so far qualified only a small fraction of the country’s police departments. Congress should expand the certification pipeline and increase funding for detection and mitigation equipment.
The AI industry is right to prepare for the day after a catastrophe. Washington should prepare for the threats already emerging, starting by deciding who is accountable for protecting physical infrastructure where violent anger is likely to land. For more on the political dimensions of AI’s growth, see our analysis of the GOP’s opening in AI data centers.
