Humans First Protests AI Data Centers in San Francisco

A conservative activist group has taken its opposition to rapid Artificial Intelligence infrastructure expansion directly to the headquarters of some of the biggest Technology companies in San Francisco, arguing that communities should have a greater say in where Data Centers are built and how AI is developed.

The group, Humans First, concluded an 8,000-mile cross-country bus tour on Monday with stops at the headquarters of Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta and Nvidia. The organisation says it is not opposed to AI or technology itself but wants stronger safeguards around data center construction, energy use, surveillance and community involvement.

The campaign reflects a growing political debate around the infrastructure required to power increasingly sophisticated AI systems. While data centers have attracted criticism over electricity and water consumption, the conversation has increasingly expanded to include concerns about employment, local control, technological safety and the longer-term consequences of increasingly capable AI systems.

Humans First Brings Anti-Data Center Campaign to San Francisco

The Humans First team arrived in San Francisco after spending roughly five weeks travelling across the United States. Its tour bus, covered in Americana-style artwork depicting farmhouses and fields, carried a prominent message: “AI Data Center Revolt.”

The bus stopped near Anthropic’s headquarters in downtown San Francisco on Monday afternoon, attracting attention from pedestrians and Technology Workers returning from lunch.

Amy Kremer, chair of Humans First, said the organisation wanted to challenge the assumption that major technology companies should be able to build billions of dollars’ worth of AI infrastructure without meaningful involvement from nearby communities.

“This technology is being shoved down people’s throats,” Kremer said, arguing that residents should have a greater role in decisions involving large-scale data center projects.

Her criticism focuses particularly on the pace and scale of the AI infrastructure buildout. As technology companies invest heavily in computing capacity, communities hosting or considering data centers have increasingly faced questions about electricity demand, water consumption, land use and the local economic impact of such projects.

What Humans First Wants From Big Tech

Humans First began as a coalition involving activists from both the political left and right who shared concerns about the rapid expansion of AI and the influence of major technology companies.

The organisation has since developed into a predominantly conservative campaign led by Kremer. Its stated goal is to advocate for stronger guardrails around data center construction and AI more broadly.

Kylie Jane Kremer, a senior adviser to the organisation, said the campaign wants technology companies to give ordinary Americans a meaningful role in decisions surrounding AI infrastructure.

The group has developed a 13-point Data Center Policy covering issues such as community control over data center planning, electricity costs and the use of American data centers for surveillance.

Humans First says its position should not be interpreted as opposition to AI itself. Instead, the group argues that technological development should take place in a way that gives communities a stronger voice and ensures that residents hosting major infrastructure projects benefit from the resulting investment.

“We’re not anti-AI, we’re not anti-tech, we’re not even anti-data center,” Kylie Jane said.

From Data Center Concerns to AI Existential Risk

The focus of the Humans First tour has evolved as the national conversation around artificial intelligence has changed.

When the organisation began its journey, many of the discussions surrounding data centers centred on their consumption of electricity and water. During the tour, however, broader concerns about AI Safety and the possibility of highly capable systems causing severe societal harm increasingly became part of the public debate.

Recent warnings from technology researchers and AI safety advocates have contributed to growing discussion about whether the industry is moving too quickly. Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon’s public warnings about the pace of AI development have been cited as an example of those concerns.

Kremer said people attending Humans First events were increasingly raising questions about the wider consequences of AI rather than focusing exclusively on data center construction.

She argued that the public discussion should therefore include not only local infrastructure concerns but also questions about how powerful AI systems should be developed and controlled.

Humans First Takes Its Message to AI Giants

The San Francisco stops represented the final stage of a campaign that visited more than 35 communities across the United States.

After travelling thousands of miles, the group arrived at companies that have become central to the global AI industry. Its itinerary included Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta and Nvidia.

The choice of locations reflected the group’s broader argument that decisions about AI infrastructure are increasingly concentrated among a relatively small number of powerful technology companies and investors.

Kylie Jane said Americans should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the construction of data centers and the future direction of AI.

The group believes the rapid infrastructure expansion should be evaluated not only through the lens of economic growth but also through its effects on communities that host the facilities.

Missouri Data Center Projects Highlight Community Concerns

Kremer pointed to Jonesburg, Missouri, as an example of what she described as a conflict between local communities and major technology companies.

The small town is located in a county with about 12,000 people, where Google and Amazon have announced plans to invest a combined $25 billion in data centers over the coming years.

Kremer described the situation as a “David-versus-Goliath” story, arguing that residents in small communities may struggle to influence projects backed by some of the world’s largest technology companies.

Her criticism reflects a broader concern among opponents of large data center developments: major infrastructure projects can involve billions of dollars in investment while simultaneously placing pressure on local electricity systems, water resources, roads and land.

Supporters of such projects, however, point to the economic investment and infrastructure development that can accompany them. The debate over how those costs and benefits should be distributed remains an important part of the growing political discussion around AI.

Conservative Opposition to AI Does Not Fully Align With Trump

The Humans First campaign also highlights a divide within conservative politics over the future of artificial intelligence.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly supported data centers and the broader AI buildout, presenting the technology as an economic opportunity. He has described AI as a “golden goose.”

Kremer said she disagrees with Trump on AI policy while maintaining that conservative activists do not necessarily have to agree with the president on every issue.

She argued that technology investors and other industry supporters have influenced the policy debate and said she believes stronger guardrails are necessary.

Kremer also expressed opposition to large data center projects being built near residential communities, saying she would not want such a facility in her own backyard.

The disagreement illustrates that concerns about AI infrastructure do not fall neatly along traditional political lines. Opposition to individual data center projects has emerged in communities with different political identities, while support for AI investment also crosses political boundaries.

AI Data Centers Become a Local Political Issue

Data centers have traditionally been viewed primarily as technology infrastructure, but their growing size and energy requirements have turned them into increasingly visible local political issues.

Large AI systems require significant computing capacity, which in turn requires facilities capable of housing large numbers of specialised servers. As technology companies increase their investments in AI, demand for additional computing infrastructure is also rising.

For communities, that can create competing priorities. New facilities can bring investment and economic activity, but residents may also have questions about electricity demand, water use, construction, land requirements and the effect on local infrastructure.

Humans First has attempted to connect these local concerns to the larger national debate over the direction of AI development.

The organisation argues that communities should not simply be informed about major projects after decisions have effectively been made. Instead, residents should have meaningful opportunities to participate in planning and approval processes.

Group Faces Pushback During Cross-Country Tour

The campaign has not been without difficulties. Kremer’s husband said she received death threats during the tour, including some from people strongly supportive of AI development.

The physical journey also presented challenges. In Wakarusa, Kansas, the group’s bus encountered a gravel road that proved too difficult to navigate. The team eventually asked residents at a nearby house whether it could hold its rally there instead.

Kremer recalled that people from the surrounding area eventually arrived for the event, describing the unexpected turnout as an encouraging moment for the group.

The experience became part of the message Humans First wanted to communicate: residents who feel isolated in their opposition to large technology projects may discover that similar concerns exist in other communities.

Humans First Says It Is Not Anti-Technology

Despite its confrontational messaging toward major technology companies, the organisation has sought to distinguish its position from outright opposition to technology.

Kylie Jane said the group’s goal is not to stop AI development but to ensure that its benefits and risks are considered by the communities affected by the infrastructure required to operate these systems.

That position places the group in a growing space between unconditional support for AI expansion and calls for much stricter limits on the technology.

Its 13-point policy focuses on issues such as local decision-making, energy costs and surveillance, while its public campaign increasingly discusses broader questions about AI safety.

The group’s message is therefore aimed at both local officials dealing with data center proposals and national policymakers considering how AI should be regulated.

Debate Over AI Safety Is Expanding

The campaign’s final days in California coincided with a wider debate among researchers, technology executives and policymakers about the potential risks of increasingly capable AI systems.

Some AI safety advocates have warned that rapid development could produce systems whose capabilities create risks that existing safeguards may not adequately address. Other technology leaders remain more optimistic about the benefits of accelerating AI development.

Kremer has brought those concerns into a conservative political environment, arguing that AI policy should not be determined exclusively by technology companies and investors.

During a panel in Berkeley, she discussed conservative approaches to AI risk and expressed disagreement with views among some technology professionals about whether AI systems could ever possess consciousness or a soul.

Her comments reflect the broader cultural and philosophical debate that increasingly surrounds artificial intelligence, although such questions remain distinct from the practical policy issues involving data center construction, energy consumption and community planning.

Anthropic Did Not Immediately Respond

Anthropic, whose San Francisco headquarters was one of the group’s stops, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the campaign.

Humans First said it did not expect the technology companies to welcome its message. Kremer acknowledged that she had not made extensive efforts to establish contact with executives at Anthropic, OpenAI or the other companies visited during the tour.

Instead, the group’s strategy has centred on bringing its message directly to communities and using the cross-country bus tour to highlight local opposition to data center projects.

The campaign’s approach reflects a broader effort to turn concerns about AI infrastructure into a grassroots political issue rather than leaving the discussion primarily to technology companies, investors and government regulators.

The Road Ahead for AI Infrastructure

The conclusion of the Humans First tour does not resolve the underlying debate over how quickly AI infrastructure should expand or how communities should participate in decisions about new data centers.

Technology companies continue to invest heavily in AI computing capacity, while communities hosting or considering data centers face questions about the costs and benefits of those projects.

At the same time, concerns about AI have expanded beyond electricity and water consumption to include privacy, surveillance, employment, safety and the possibility of highly capable systems creating risks that are difficult to control.

Humans First is attempting to bring those issues into conservative political circles and connect them with a populist argument for greater public participation.

After completing more than 35 stops across the country, the group ended its journey in San Francisco by preparing to cross the Golden Gate Bridge for final promotional footage.

Kylie Jane said the organisation believes collective public action can challenge the influence of technology companies regardless of their financial resources.

Whether that campaign develops into a sustained political movement remains to be seen, but the tour reflects a growing reality around AI: the debate is no longer confined to Silicon Valley. As data centers spread across communities and AI systems become more influential, questions about who controls the technology, who bears its costs and who gets a voice in its development are becoming increasingly difficult to separate from local and national politics.