The China Bogeyman: A Convenient Distraction from Ohio’s Data Center Debate
There’s a peculiar trend in politics that never fails to amaze me: when faced with uncomfortable questions, some leaders don’t bother answering them. Instead, they invent a scapegoat. And in the case of Ohio’s growing backlash against data centers, Republican Congressman Bob Latta has found the perfect culprit: China. Personally, I think this move is less about national security and more about avoiding a conversation Ohioans desperately need to have.
Let’s start with the basics. Latta, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy subcommittee, recently called on the FBI to investigate whether China is fueling opposition to data center construction in the U.S. His theory? Chinese state media, foreign-funded nonprofits, and shadowy billionaires are secretly turning Americans against these server farms, all to slow down the U.S. in the race for AI supremacy. It’s a narrative that, on the surface, sounds like a Cold War thriller. But if you take a step back and think about it, it’s also a masterclass in deflection.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how neatly it sidesteps the real issue. Ohioans aren’t protesting data centers because some foreign actor told them to. They’re protesting because these facilities are reshaping their communities—often at great cost. Farmers are watching their cornfields rezoned for windowless warehouses. Residents are seeing their electric bills soar. Local officials are grappling with the strain on infrastructure and water resources. These aren’t abstract concerns; they’re tangible, lived experiences.
One thing that immediately stands out is how Latta’s narrative ignores the grassroots nature of this opposition. It’s not just a few disgruntled individuals; it’s townships, city councils, and even members of his own party raising alarms. What many people don’t realize is that Ohio already ranks fifth in the nation for data centers, with dozens more expected in the coming years. This isn’t a hypothetical problem—it’s happening right now, and people are feeling the impact.
From my perspective, the China theory serves a very specific purpose: it shifts the focus from legitimate grievances to a phantom enemy. If the opposition is homegrown, Latta and his colleagues have to address it. They have to explain why residential ratepayers should subsidize the power demands of tech giants. They have to justify the tax breaks, the land use, and the environmental costs. These are hard conversations, and frankly, they’re conversations politicians would rather avoid.
But by framing the opposition as a foreign influence operation, Latta effectively dismisses these concerns as disinformation. Your worried neighbor isn’t a constituent with valid questions—she’s a dupe of Beijing. It’s a brilliantly cynical maneuver, but it’s also deeply dishonest.
What this really suggests is that Latta knows the complaints might have merit. If the concerns were baseless, he could simply debunk them with evidence. Instead, he’s asking the FBI to investigate the provenance of the complaints, which raises a deeper question: Why is he more interested in who’s complaining than in what they’re complaining about?
This tactic isn’t new, of course. History is littered with examples of politicians smearing their critics as foreign agents. Labor organizers were branded as Moscow’s puppets. Civil rights leaders were dismissed as communist fronts. Anti-war protesters were labeled as tools of foreign powers. It’s a playbook as old as time, and it’s always served the same purpose: to silence dissent by questioning its legitimacy.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how this strategy was used in Ohio just a few years ago. In 2020, during the debate over House Bill 6—the infamous nuclear bailout law—supporters flooded the state with mailers warning that repealing the bill would benefit Communist China. The message had nothing to do with the actual issue: whether Ohioans should continue subsidizing the law’s beneficiaries. But it worked, because it tapped into the same fear-mongering narrative we’re seeing now.
Here’s the thing: foreign influence operations are real. China, Russia, and Iran do meddle in American discourse, and the FBI should investigate credible evidence of such interference. But Latta’s letter isn’t about national security—it’s about political convenience. It takes a legitimate concern and weaponizes it to discredit a grassroots movement.
If you ask me, this is a disservice to Latta’s constituents. The people of Ohio aren’t confused, and they’re not being manipulated by Beijing. They’re doing exactly what citizens in a democracy should do: showing up, asking questions, and demanding accountability. Latta owes them answers, not distractions.
In the end, this isn’t about China. It’s about power—who wields it, and who pays the price. And if Latta wants to know why Ohioans are upset, he doesn’t need the FBI. He just needs to listen.
