Ok, let's step back and look at the conversation from the beginning. The sequencing here matters. OP made a specific claim (“Trump is making data centers get their own power”). You replied by embedding that claim into a larger narrative (“Trump is making the enemy pay for the MAGA agenda”), which reads as indirect validation. That’s fine, but it means the two claims are now linked for purposes of scrutiny.
The issue isn’t beliefs, it’s validation mechanics. OP made a claim, and you folded that claim into a bigger narrative as if it’s already true. That functions as support of the original claim. Then when I asked for evidence of any part of that combined construction (the OP's claim and then your larger narrative), you suddenly insist the OP’s claim was never part of the discussion.
That’s how unverified claims get laundered into “common knowledge”: validate first, de-link second, and the original assertion never has to carry evidence. 🤷♀️
My pushback wasn’t about your worldview. It was about the basic question. "Did the OP’s claim actually happen, and by what mechanism?"
If the answer is “it’s behind the scenes and will be made public later,” that’s fine as a belief. But that’s not evidence of a present- tense policy outcome, which is what the OP’s headline asserted, and which you indirectly supported with your original comment in this thread.
You seem to want to be able to support what the OP says by folding it into your outlook that our "enemies are being forced to pay for MAGA agenda" but when I ask you for evidence of this claim, you then want to wash your hands of anything to do with the OP, because you didn't say it. You seem to want to be able to use the OP's claim as evidence of an overall agenda, but you don't want to have the responsibility of verifying that it's legitimate.
I think that this would qualify as having your cake and eating it, too. 🤷♀️
But maybe I just read this all wrong. Maybe you just routinely go around making cryptic replies to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the post itself. 🤷♀️
In any case, I don't see what's going to be gained from going around and around the same arguments here.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what you were asking me - it didnt come across that way, but I am happy to dig into the claim in the Trump truth. I think this is the key claim you are asking about:
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.”
You mentioned you looked for some documentary evidence and couldn't find anything and implied that all Trump has done is talk to people and talking to people is not the same as implementation.
Assuming thats what you are referring to, I have to say I do stand corrected. I was originally wrong when I assumed that there was no documentary evidence.
It did not take me long to find out that infact, not only has there been documentary evidence, but its clear that Trump administration as been strategically working on this at a policy level (Yes, I am now making that claim).
So here is what I will present evidence for:
Trump's DOE has been working on changing policies to facilitate AI companies to pay directly to private power providers and not tap into the public grid.
FERC responds positively to this policy change and paves the way for making these Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) more transparent and give it regulatory stability:
We can see the results of these policy shifts in the market with PPA deals announced between AI companies and private power companies. Just a few to sample:
Now coming to the final question, regarding the implication from Trump's tweet EVERY new Datacenter/AI needs to have a PPA - Trump does not say it explicitly, but clearly implies that none of this would drive up the energy price for ordinary consumers. So how are these companies being mandated not to do that?
We can easily argue that market dynamics will take care of it. Companies will be able to sign far more lucrative 10-20 year contracts via PPAs (like I linked above) than depending on the grid.
But surprisingly, there is actually work happening on making these mandates at both federal and state level, and not always coming from Trump himself, infact sometimes even from his enemies, whatever their intentions be, definitely serving Trump's goal:
Ok, let's step back and look at the conversation from the beginning. The sequencing here matters. OP made a specific claim (“Trump is making data centers get their own power”). You replied by embedding that claim into a larger narrative (“Trump is making the enemy pay for the MAGA agenda”), which reads as indirect validation. That’s fine, but it means the two claims are now linked for purposes of scrutiny.
The issue isn’t beliefs, it’s validation mechanics. OP made a claim, and you folded that claim into a bigger narrative as if it’s already true. That functions as support of the original claim. Then when I asked for evidence of any part of that combined construction (the OP's claim and then your larger narrative), you suddenly insist the OP’s claim was never part of the discussion.
That’s how unverified claims get laundered into “common knowledge”: validate first, de-link second, and the original assertion never has to carry evidence. 🤷♀️
My pushback wasn’t about your worldview. It was about the basic question. "Did the OP’s claim actually happen, and by what mechanism?"
If the answer is “it’s behind the scenes and will be made public later,” that’s fine as a belief. But that’s not evidence of a present- tense policy outcome, which is what the OP’s headline asserted, and which you indirectly supported with your original comment in this thread.
You seem to want to be able to support what the OP says by folding it into your outlook that our "enemies are being forced to pay for MAGA agenda" but when I ask you for evidence of this claim, you then want to wash your hands of anything to do with the OP, because you didn't say it. You seem to want to be able to use the OP's claim as evidence of an overall agenda, but you don't want to have the responsibility of verifying that it's legitimate.
I think that this would qualify as having your cake and eating it, too. 🤷♀️
But maybe I just read this all wrong. Maybe you just routinely go around making cryptic replies to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the post itself. 🤷♀️
In any case, I don't see what's going to be gained from going around and around the same arguments here.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what you were asking me - it didnt come across that way, but I am happy to dig into the claim in the Trump truth. I think this is the key claim you are asking about:
You mentioned you looked for some documentary evidence and couldn't find anything and implied that all Trump has done is talk to people and talking to people is not the same as implementation.
Assuming thats what you are referring to, I have to say I do stand corrected. I was originally wrong when I assumed that there was no documentary evidence.
It did not take me long to find out that infact, not only has there been documentary evidence, but its clear that Trump administration as been strategically working on this at a policy level (Yes, I am now making that claim).
So here is what I will present evidence for:
DOE Invokes Rare Authority to Direct FERC to Accelerate Grid Access for Large Loads and Data Centers
Alternate source
Sauce from DoE
Feds pave the way for Big Tech to plug data centers right into power plants in scramble for energy
FERC Begins Shaping the Future of Data Center Co-Location
Sauce from FERC
FERCing the nuclear-powered data center
Meta Locks In Up to 6.6 GW of Nuclear Power Through Deals with Vistra, Oklo, and TerraPower
Meta signs 20-year PPA with Constellation for entire output of Illinois nuclear power plant
Sauce from FB
Talen and Amazon sign 1.92GW nuclear energy PPA
We can easily argue that market dynamics will take care of it. Companies will be able to sign far more lucrative 10-20 year contracts via PPAs (like I linked above) than depending on the grid.
But surprisingly, there is actually work happening on making these mandates at both federal and state level, and not always coming from Trump himself, infact sometimes even from his enemies, whatever their intentions be, definitely serving Trump's goal:
DeSantis proposes an AI Bill of Rights, strict data center protections, and new safeguards for children in Florida
Sauce
Georgia
Virginia
Oregon
and so on (There are some 22 States doing this for "Climate Change")
In addition some other documentary evidence to show that Trump administration is serious about this:
DOE Site Selection Announcement for private-sector AI data centers and energy generation projects.
Trump Administration Seeks to Streamline Federal Permitting for Data Centers with New Executive Order and Action Plan
Trump Administration Launches Sweeping Initiative to Advance Deployment of Nuclear Technology
This was a good reply, thanks for the dig