Last week in Washington, two politically divergent figures, Senator Bernie Sanders and former White House strategist Steve Bannon, jointly called for a halt to the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and its associated data centers, highlighting growing bipartisan concerns about the technology’s economic and social impacts. Both speakers criticized the influence of large corporate entities behind AI development, framing the issue as a symptom of a broader populist backlash against economic inequality and corporate power in the United States.
Economic populism has gained momentum amid perceptions that the current system disproportionately benefits wealthy investors and business owners at the expense of average workers. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of mid-2026, workers’ share of total economic income had dropped to a historic low of 52.9%, down from over 65% in the late 1940s. This decline in wages coincides with rapid advances in AI technologies, which critics argue are amplifying income disparity by generating substantial profits for a select few while displacing jobs and suppressing wages for many others.
The debate over AI has become intertwined with broader concerns about corporate influence over politics and policymaking. The Trump administration’s approach to regulation and corporate governance, critics say, exposed and exacerbated the prioritization of corporate interests. During this period, some companies were allowed to pursue energy-intensive AI data center projects with minimal oversight, fueling apprehensions about environmental impacts and corporate accountability. Trump's ties to corporate backers, including campaign funding and political endorsements, have been cited as emblematic of a political climate in which wealthy elites operate with considerable impunity.
Public opinion surveys reflect widespread unease. A recent poll indicated that approximately 70% of Americans oppose the expansion of data centers, while over 60% harbor fears that AI could threaten humanity’s future. These anxieties are compounded by worries about corporate elites leveraging political influence to secure favorable treatment, such as tax breaks, regulatory rollbacks, union suppression, and exclusive government contracts, further entrenching economic inequality.
Partisan perceptions have shifted as well. A Times-Siena poll found that 43% of likely voters now associate the term “elitist” with the Republican Party, compared to 33% who associate it with Democrats—an inversion of historical alignments. This realignment recalls earlier periods in American political history, such as during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, when the Democratic Party was broadly seen as representing working-class interests against economic monopolies.
Within the Democratic Party, debate continues over how to address AI-related issues amid electoral concerns. Some political consultants reportedly advise candidates in competitive races to avoid discussions about AI and its regulation, fearing backlash from well-funded pro-AI interest groups during the midterm elections.
As AI’s economic and political influence grows, debate persists over whether Democrats will embrace this emerging economic populism or continue to moderate their stance in the face of powerful corporate interests. The outcome could have significant implications for the direction of American politics and the future balance between innovation, economic equity, and democratic governance.