The Trump administration is building a plan to force technology companies to cover the full costs of their sprawling data center operations, from electricity to water to the strain they place on the nation's power grid.

Trade and manufacturing adviser Peter Navarro laid out the framework on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, making clear that the White House sees no reason American ratepayers should subsidize Silicon Valley's appetite for energy.

The policy is still taking shape, but the direction is unmistakable. Tech giants that consume enormous quantities of power to run artificial intelligence infrastructure will be expected to internalize every dollar of that consumption rather than passing the burden onto consumers already squeezed by rising utility bills.

Navarro did not mince words:

"All of these data center builders, Meta on down, need to pay for all, all of the costs. They need to pay, not only pay for the electricity that they're using on the grid, but they have to pay for the resiliency that they're affecting as well. They need to pay for the water."

Electricity prices have already climbed 6.9 percent year over year in 2025, Breitbart reported. The administration's position is straightforward: the companies driving that demand should bear the cost, not the families and small businesses sharing the same grid.

A Problem That Built Itself

The explosion of AI development has turned data centers into some of the most energy-hungry operations in the country. These facilities don't just draw massive amounts of electricity. They require constant cooling, which means enormous water consumption, and they strain the grid infrastructure that serves entire regions.

Northern Virginia and New Jersey sit within the territory of PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest grid operator, and the pressure on that network has become acute. Energy Secretary Chris Wright framed the stakes after a January agreement in which several states joined the White House to urge PJM to require tech companies to finance new power plants:

"Perhaps no region in America is more at risk than in PJM. That's why President Trump asked governors across the Mid-Atlantic to come together and call upon PJM to allow America to build big reliable power plants again."

That agreement called for $15 billion in new generation capacity within the PJM network, funded by the technology companies driving the demand. It also requested an emergency auction to secure additional power. The message to the industry was clear: if you need the electricity, you build the supply.

Big Tech's Response

Meta moved quickly to push back on the suggestion that it isn't already carrying its weight. A company spokesperson said:

"Meta pays the full costs for energy used by our data centers so they aren't passed onto consumers — and we go beyond that by paying for new and upgraded local infrastructure as well as adding new power to the grid."

That's a fine corporate statement. It's also exactly what you'd expect a company to say when the White House starts publicly naming you. Whether Meta's current arrangements satisfy the full-cost standard the administration is developing remains to be seen. Paying for the electricity you consume is one thing. Paying for the grid resiliency when your consumption degrades is another.

The administration has also been working closely with Microsoft, with Trump stating on Truth Social that the company would begin implementing major changes to ensure Americans do not shoulder the costs of its power consumption. The specifics of those changes have not been detailed.

The real question isn't whether these companies can afford it

They can. These are among the most profitable corporations in human history. The question is why, for so long, the default assumption was that communities hosting data centers should absorb the externalities while the companies captured the profits. That's the arrangement the administration is dismantling.

Conservative skepticism of corporate welfare isn't new. What's new is a White House willing to apply it to the tech sector with the same force it applies to other industries. The free market works best when costs are transparent and borne by the entities that generate them. Socializing infrastructure costs while privatizing AI profits is not free enterprise. It's a subsidy by another name.

The Affordability Frame

Navarro connected the data center issue to the broader cost-of-living crisis that remains the dominant concern for most American households:

"I just want to assure people that we're on it, we also feel your pain. We understand the ravages that inflation took on you because of Joe Biden's irresponsibility, but we are addressing that with economic policy that ultimately will make wages rise faster than the inflation rate, and that's the key to affordability."

This is the through line. Energy costs are not an abstraction. They show up in every electric bill, every grocery receipt, every small business overhead calculation. When a handful of corporations vacuum up grid capacity to train AI models, the cost doesn't vanish. It migrates to everyone else on the network.

The administration's approach treats energy policy as consumer protection. Make the companies that consume the power pay for the power and for the infrastructure required to keep the lights on for everyone else. It's a principle so basic it shouldn't require a White House initiative. But here we are.

What Comes Next

The policy specifics are still forming, which means the lobbying war is just beginning. Tech companies will argue they already pay their share, that they're investing in renewable energy, and that heavy-handed regulation will slow American AI competitiveness. Some of those arguments will have merit. None of them changes the fundamental equation.

The administration has several levers available:

• Direct cost requirements imposed through agreements with grid operators like PJM
• Mandates that data center operators finance new generation capacity proportional to their consumption
• Water usage fees that reflect actual environmental and infrastructure costs
• Collaboration with state governors to ensure local communities aren't left holding the bill

The January agreement with PJM already established the template. The $15 billion commitment for new generation capacity shows this isn't theoretical. The administration is building a framework where the companies that need the energy are the companies that build the supply.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to oppose offshore wind projects in the Northeast, signaling that the answer to America's energy demands runs through reliable, dispatchable power generation, not intermittent sources that add complexity to an already strained grid.

The tech sector spent years cultivating a political identity as the virtuous wing of American capitalism: clean energy commitments, progressive hiring practices, carbon-neutral pledges. Now it faces something those commitments never required. Paying the full tab.