The government has decided that complaining about AI data centers on Facebook makes you a domestic violent extremist.

"Domestic violent extremists are likely interested in targeting artificial intelligence data centers, posing a physical and cyber threat to infrastructure in the Philadelphia regional area."

— Delaware Valley Intelligence Center, December 2025 bulletin

A confidential law enforcement bulletin obtained by The Intercept reveals that a Philadelphia fusion center has been combing through social media posts from people who criticize AI data centers and flagging them as potential terrorists. The report was distributed to state, local, and federal police agencies across the national fusion center network. It classified "disruptive First Amendment activity" as an indicator of risk from domestic violent extremists.

This is not an isolated incident. WIRED obtained more than 1,000 pages of unpublished reports from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and multiple fusion centers showing a coordinated national effort to surveil what they call "anti-tech extremism." The term does not appear in any publicly available DHS or FBI domestic extremism guides. It is a novel category created to capture a wide range of political opposition under a single counterterrorism umbrella.

Translation: Americans who show up to town halls to complain about their electric bill are now classified as potential terrorists.

The Philadelphia report specifically targeted three planned data center facilities in the region. Analysts flagged posts from an "anti-capitalist blog" that referenced a fictional anti-robot movement from the science fiction novel Dune. They cited a Facebook meme where someone wrote they felt "morally obligated to sabotage AI data center infrastructure." Commenters had discussed a proposed Amazon data center near Berwick, Pennsylvania as a "potential target."

The Intercept found other versions of this meme posted across Facebook and Instagram with no connection to specific physical facilities. The report also referenced a single unnamed internet user who expressed a desire to "burn down" data centers. None of these posts identified actual targets or concrete plans for violence.

Yet the Delaware Valley Intelligence Center warned that indicators of an increased threat could include "more disruptive First Amendment activity," boycotts, and "extensive criticism of higher utility bills resulting from AI data centers." The document also mentioned discussions on anonymous image boards about using magnets, explosives, or electromagnetic pulse weapons against data centers, alongside references to chemical and biological attacks.

Paul Hetznecker, a longtime Philadelphia civil rights lawyer, called it "a very dangerous attempt to characterize protected First Amendment activity as something more sinister."

The surveillance push is not limited to Philadelphia. WIRED's investigation found that the Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center flagged activities like "observation/surveillance," "photography," and "testing/probing of security" as suspicious indicators for data center threats. Spencer Reynolds, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, noted that these are behaviors any member of the public could engage in at a public facility.

A report from the New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau warned that AI adoption could fuel "large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity" in major urban areas. The NYPD intelligence bureau also monitored a Signal chat belonging to an activist group that coordinated volunteers to observe immigration court proceedings, classifying them as "anarchist violent extremist actors."

The for-profit surveillance company SITE Intelligence circulated bulletins to fusion centers claiming conversations in a "neo-Luddite" Discord server had turned violent. In April 2025, SITE flagged a video from the progressive nonprofit More Perfect Union documenting the environmental impact of a data center on Georgia residents. Nothing in the video advocated violence against property or people. It was circulated among US intelligence and law enforcement as a potential threat vector anyway.

The legal framework that makes this possible traces back to September 11, 2001. Fusion centers sprouted across the country in its aftermath, serving as go-betweens for federal intelligence agencies and local law enforcement. There are now 80 of them. They have a long record of targeting lawful protest: Black Lives Matter demonstrators, pipeline opponents, anti-fracking activists, and cultural event organizers have all been flagged as security threats.

Pennsylvania has its own history. In 2010, then-Governor Ed Rendell apologized after the state Department of Homeland Security contracted with a private firm to produce fearmongering reports on groups including anti-fracking activists. The pattern repeats: identify legitimate political opposition, stretch the definition of extremism until it encompasses dissent, and distribute the resulting intelligence to every police agency in the region.

The Trump administration has actively accelerated this machinery. National Security Presidential Memo 7 instructs the Department of Justice to target anyone holding "anti-American," "anti-Christian," or "anti-capitalism" beliefs. Counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka released a public strategy document naming left-wing extremists as one of three top domestic threats. Extremism researcher Mauro Lubrano, author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology, has been invited to lecture at fusion centers across the country on "anti-tech extremism."

Lubrano cautioned that his framework should not be used to "securitize AI and emerging technologies, thereby silencing those who are critical of the current trajectory."

The opposition being surveilled is not fringe. A Gallup poll conducted in March 2026 found that 71 percent of Americans oppose the construction of AI data centers in their local area. Nearly half said they were strongly opposed. Only 27 percent supported it. Americans now appear more willing to live near a nuclear power plant than an AI data center.

Half of opponents cite excessive resource use, with 18 percent each mentioning water consumption and energy demand. Sixteen percent raised pollution concerns including noise, air quality, and water contamination. The opposition extends across the political spectrum: seven out of ten Americans, regardless of party, do not want data centers as neighbors.

Hundreds of organizations in 42 states have organized to block data center construction, according to Data Center Watch, a tracking project by AI security firm 10a Labs. In California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, state and local police have removed or arrested speakers at town halls who criticized data centers. In one case, residents were silenced before they were even allowed to speak.

The government is treating a majority opinion as a domestic terrorism threat.

When The Intercept asked the Philadelphia Police Department about the bulletin, Sgt. Eric Gripp responded with a statement asserting that the center "recognizes and respects the rights of individuals to lawfully express opinions, engage in peaceful advocacy, and participate in protected First Amendment activities." He said the assessments are designed to provide situational awareness, "not to characterize lawful activity or constitutionally protected speech as criminal conduct."

The text of the bulletin tells a different story. It literally lists boycotts, criticism, and attendance at public meetings as indicators that domestic violent extremists may be preparing to attack data centers. The FBI declined to comment beyond a boilerplate statement about investigating individuals who commit or intend to commit federal crimes. DHS did not respond to WIRED's request for comment.

The question is not whether a handful of people online have made threatening posts about data centers. The question is why the government has decided that the solution to fringe violence is to put millions of ordinary Americans under counterterrorism surveillance for expressing what 71 percent of their fellow citizens agree with.

The surveillance state was built to catch terrorists. It seems it has finally found something more important to watch: people who do not like what technology companies are doing to their communities.