6 minBusiness
Data Center Infrastructure Gap Threatens U.S. AI Leadership, Industry Leaders Warn
Two national security veterans argue that America's ability to compete in artificial intelligence depends on rapidly expanding power generation, transmission, and data center capacity, warning that permitting delays and supply chain bottlenecks are slowing progress while China aggressively builds.
America's ability to lead in artificial intelligence will depend not only on software and algorithms but on the physical infrastructure needed to power and operate advanced computing, two national security veterans warn. Kirk Offel, a Navy nuclear submarine veteran and CEO of a Texas-based data center company, and Mike Sarraille, a former special operations forces member, argue that the United States is not building that infrastructure fast enough to keep pace with competitors, particularly China.
In an opinion piece, the two write that most Americans rarely think about digital infrastructure because it is always there. People carry supercomputers in their pockets and expect instant access to bank accounts, medical records, airline schedules, and virtually any piece of information. That availability masks an enormous physical system behind it. Both men say they learned the value of information long before entering the critical infrastructure industry — Offel beneath the ocean aboard U.S. Navy nuclear submarines, and Sarraille years later on the battlefields of the Global War on Terror with special operations forces. The lesson was the same: having the right information at the right time can save lives.
That lesson applies to the challenge America faces today, they argue. The race for artificial intelligence is not simply about who develops the best software or algorithm. It is also about who can build the power generation, transmission, data centers, and workforce required to run it. If the country fails at that part of the equation, it will not matter how innovative it is. For generations, one of America's greatest strengths was turning innovation into physical capability — interstate highways, ports, power plants, factories, and telecommunications networks that fueled economic growth while strengthening national security.
The authors contend that the U.S. is at another such moment but is not moving fast enough. Permitting delays, grid bottlenecks, and supply-chain constraints are slowing new generation and transmission at precisely the moment AI and advanced computing are creating enormous new demand for electricity. China understands this, they write, and is aggressively expanding power generation, transmission, manufacturing, and computing capacity because technological leadership ultimately requires physical capacity. While Washington debates how AI should be governed, competitors are making sure they have the infrastructure to deploy it.
That is why the way data centers are discussed also needs to change, the authors argue. They are not simply large commercial buildings filled with servers. They are part of what the authors call the Fifth Utility — the interconnected compute, power, fiber, and digital infrastructure that supports banking, healthcare, transportation, commerce, emergency communications, national intelligence, and defense. None of that means communities should accept development without asking tough questions. Residents deserve to know how projects will affect power, water, land, electricity rates, and local infrastructure. Developers have an obligation to show up early, answer those questions honestly, and invest responsibly in the communities where they build.
The authors say it is possible to protect communities and ratepayers while still building the infrastructure America needs. In fact, they argue, both must be done. The same is true of the workforce. Data centers and power plants do not build themselves. America needs electricians, line workers, welders, high-voltage technicians, construction professionals, and mission-critical operators. Meanwhile, roughly 200,000 men and women leave military service every year with many of the qualities the industry desperately needs: technical discipline, leadership, adaptability, and the ability to perform when failure is not an option.
Creating stronger pathways from military service into critical infrastructure careers should be part of a national strategy, not simply a workforce initiative, the authors write. They spent their military careers understanding that information superiority matters only if you have the people, systems, and infrastructure to deliver it when it counts. Technology may have changed, but the principle has not. America still has the capital, energy resources, technology, and talent to lead the digital age. What cannot be assumed is that those advantages will last while the country takes years to build what competitors are building now.
The digital world may feel invisible, but the infrastructure behind it is not. It requires power, transmission, fiber, steel, concrete, and skilled people. If America intends to lead the digital age, the authors conclude, it needs to start building like it.
