Economic Development

Many sales and use-tax exemptions for data centers include exemptions on power purchases. Where localities are not preempted by state law, localities should tax all electricity use with no exemptions, increase the daily rate during energy emergencies (e.g., heatwaves), and require that a portion of tax be funneled into local projects and energy infrastructure.

Cities may consider limiting or banning corporate tax subsidies for data centers, especially as such restrictions relate to local property and sales taxes. 

If they have to be granted, local property-tax abatements should be short-term (research suggests not longer than three years¹) and should grant no more than 50 percent abatement of tangible and intangible property. Before granting any tax breaks, local officials should commission or perform independent return-on-investment or cost-benefit analysis of proposed incentives. Those studies should be available for public inspection at minimum 90 days ahead of incentive approval.

Note: State-level sales and use-tax exemptions abate both state and local sales tax portions. Localities must consult state law to determine any preemption concerns or conflicts.

1. Timothy J. Bartik, “Rethinking State Economic Development Strategies: Or, How to Maximize Benefits for State Residents’ Earnings per Capita,” W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, December 18, 2019, https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=presentations. ↩︎

As a condition of tax breaks, localities, when there is no conflict with law, can require companies to abide by strong labor conditions. See Establish Local Fair Labor Requirements to learn more, including the limitations of labor requirements given that data centers are not significant job creators.

Property taxes are the largest single source of revenue for K-12 education, so localities should ideally prohibit abatements of property taxes that funnel into schools. At minimum, where there is no conflict with state law, localities should give school districts the power to opt in or out of any abatement deal, for a negotiated duration and percent.

Because sales and use-tax exemptions for data centers are enacted at the state level, local community leaders can and should speak out against these tax breaks given that they pull valuable money away from communities. The state-enacted sales and use-tax exemptions abate both state and local portions of the tax, effectively preempting local control.

Where legal, jurisdictions may consider instituting taxes on data centers or peripherals.

Note: Revenue generated from PILOT agreements is significantly less than what would be generated from full taxation, so local governments should force data centers to pay fair taxes and deprioritize PILOT programs.

Report at least annually to the public the name of the subsidized company, the amount and type of tax breaks each project is getting, the number of jobs created, and wages paid to workers by job type, as well as the total amounts of property tax and local portion of the sales tax abated for all projects.

Localities should ensure that the limited jobs that data centers provide are high-quality, stable, and local.

Hiring

Localities should require data centers to hire full-time data center staff from the local population or partner with community organizations on first-source hiring programs. These employees should be directly employed by the data center operator and not hired as subcontractors. For construction jobs, localities should demand project labor agreements with a commitment that construction projects will employ local building trade union workers. Localities may also require prioritizing the hiring of underrepresented groups in specific industries or labor markets—such as women in construction or veterans.

Wages

Jobs should pay, at a minimum, a living wage adjusted annually for inflation. Ideally, wages should align with market-based standards tied to the state or regional median wage for the data center industry. There must be pay equity for equal work between contractors and the data center company’s own employees.

Benefits

Employers should be required to provide health insurance and cover at least 50 percent of the premium cost for each worker. Localities should also demand that data centers provide child care to all workers.

Health, Safety, and Well-being

Localities should regulate working conditions, including ensuring there is an adequate break room with strong health and safety standards.

Transparency

Localities should require data centers to give annual reports on labor demographic data, including number of full-time employees, subcontractors, and temporary workers. Include demographics such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, education level, and pay and benefits data for each represented group. Include client overhead cost for the bill-rate per headcount of subcontracted worker, organized by job title.

There are four pathways that local policymakers can take to enshrine these demands into law.

Pass a County Labor Ordinance

Where it does not conflict with state or federal law, cities can pass labor ordinances codifying these provisions into law. This is the strongest possible vehicle because it would apply to all workers in a jurisdiction.

Require Job-Quality Standards as a Condition on Permitting Approval

As a next-best step, localities should condition permitting on data center proposals abiding by strong labor standards. Crucially, these must be legally binding and include a clawback provision that specifies failure to meet the agreed-upon standards will result in the revocation of the permit and certificate of occupancy. See Establish Conditional Use Permitting for Data Centers for more details.

Require Job-Quality Standards as a Condition of Tax Breaks or Subsidies

If attaching labor conditions to the conditional permitting process is not possible, localities can attach labor conditions to tax breaks where there is no conflict with state law. Note: This is less preferable to permitting because localities should repeal tax breaks for data centers. These must be legally binding and include a clawback provision that specifies failure to meet the agreed-upon standards will require repayment. See Repeal or Limit Tax Incentives and Subsidies for more details.

Institute Legally Binding Community Benefits Agreements

Labor conditions can also be attached to community benefits agreements (CBAs). This is the least preferable vehicle because CBAs are limited in scope and do not apply to all data center development projects within a community. See Considerations for Community Benefits Agreements for more details.

Ensure that any commitments made as part of the process are legally binding and publicly disclosed.¹ Binding commitments can be referenced as a necessary condition within the conditional use permitting process to give CBAs stronger enforcement potential (see Establish Conditional Use Permitting for Data Centers for more details). Establish continued tracking and enforcement mechanisms in the event that developers do not follow through on commitments to communities, with non-nominal penalties for violations.

1. NAACP, “Frontline Framework Community Guiding Principles,” September 4, 2025, https://naacp.org/resources/frontline-framework-community-guiding-principles. ↩︎

Note: Achieving meaningful community participation is challenging. Effective outreach must consider community members’ time availability, access to and comfort with technology, childcare needs, and varied modes of communication for different audiences.

1. NAACP, “Frontline Framework Community Guiding Principles.” ↩︎

Note that this might only be possible if the CBA process involves stakeholders with well-established structures to receive or manage payments.

1. James J. A. Blair et al., Building Community Power: Community Benefits Agreements Across the Global Energy Supply Chain, Climate and Community Institute, October 2025,
   https://climateandcommunity.org/research/cbas. ↩︎

As stated by Good Jobs First:¹ “Explicitly disqualify data centers from sales and use-tax exemptions, corporate income tax credits (for investment or hiring), personal income tax diversions, and utility tax exemptions.” 

States should also disqualify data centers from local property tax abatements, millage rate preferences, and exemptions on power purchases.

1. Kasia Tarczynska, “Data Centers: Key Reforms for State Subsidy Legislation,” Good Jobs First, September 23, 2025, https://goodjobsfirst.org/data-centers-best-reforms-for-state-subsidy-legislation. ↩︎

As a condition of tax breaks, states can require companies to abide by strong labor conditions. See Establish State Fair Labor Requirements to learn more, including the limitations of labor requirements, since data centers are not significant job creators.

Property taxes are the largest single source of revenue for K-12 education, so states should ideally prohibit abatements of property taxes that funnel into schools. At minimum, states should give school districts the power to opt in or out of any abatement deal, for a negotiated duration and percent.

States should reject the development of special economic zones designed to spur data centers.

If and where special economic zones provide favorable tax conditions to data centers, states should proactively exempt data center development from existing special economic zone legislation.

Note: While this can potentially mitigate harm, revenue generated from PILOT agreements is significantly less than what would be generated from full taxation, so states should instead force data centers to pay fair taxes and deprioritize special economic zones, including those with PILOT programs.

States should ensure that the limited jobs that data centers provide are high-quality, stable, and local.

Hiring

States should require data centers to hire full-time data center staff from the local population, or partner with community organizations on first-source hiring programs. These employees should be directly employed by the data center operator and not hired as subcontractors. For construction jobs, states should demand project labor agreements with a commitment that construction projects will employ local building-trade union workers. States may also require prioritizing the hiring of underrepresented groups in specific industries or labor markets—such as women in construction or veterans.

Wages

Jobs should pay, at a minimum, a living wage adjusted annually for inflation. Ideally, wages should align with market-based standards tied to the state or regional median wage for the data center industry. There must be pay equity for equal work between contractors and the data center company’s own employees.

Benefits

Employers should be required to provide health insurance and cover at least 50 percent of the premium cost for each worker. States should also demand that data centers provide child care to all workers.

Health, Safety, and Well-Being

States should regulate working conditions, including ensuring there is an adequate break room with strong health and safety standa

Collective Bargaining Neutrality

States must mandate neutrality in all firms benefiting from state subsidies.

Transparency

Localities should require data centers to report annually labor demographic data, including number of full-time employees, subcontractors, and temporary workers. Include demographics such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, education level, and pay and benefits data for each represented group. Include client overhead cost for the bill-rate per headcount of subcontracted workers, organized by job title.

There are four pathways that state lawmakers can take to enshrine these demands into law.

Pass a State Law

Where it does not conflict with federal law, states can pass labor ordinances codifying these provisions into law. This is the strongest possible vehicle, since it would apply to all workers across the state.

Require Job-Quality Standards as a Condition on Permitting Approval

As a next-best step, states should condition permitting on data center proposals abiding by strong labor standards. While permitting is typically controlled by local jurisdictions, states can pass a law requiring certain conditions as a requirement for permitting. Crucially, these conditions must be legally binding and include a clawback provision that specifies failure to meet the agreed-upon standards will result in the revocation of permit and certificate of occupancy. See Establish Conditional Use Permitting for Data Centers for more details.

Require Job-Quality Standards as a Condition of Tax Breaks or Subsidies

If attaching labor conditions to the conditional permitting process is not possible, states can attach labor conditions to tax breaks. Note: This is less preferable than permitting because states should repeal tax breaks for data centers. These conditions must be legally binding and include a clawback provision that specifies that failure to meet the agreed-upon standards will require repayment. See Repeal or Limit Tax Incentives and Subsidies for more details.

Institute Legally Binding Community Benefits Agreements

Labor conditions can also be attached to community benefits agreements (CBAs). This is the least preferable vehicle because CBAs are limited in scope and do not apply to all data center development projects within a community. See Considerations for Community Benefits Agreements for more details.

If prohibition of data centers on public lands and waters is not possible, Congress can attach strong, enforceable conditions onto all data center development (including the infrastructure to support data centers) on federal lands to ensure data centers are publicly owned and are accountable to the public. This strategy opens up space to consider how technological development—including data centers—might unfold if it were guided by public interest objectives rather than private control over the AI stack. Beyond the limits of this administration’s infrastructure approach, there remains significant opportunity to reimagine AI infrastructure development to support public objectives and fund best-in-class research trajectories sidelined by profit-driven incentives. The conditions that bring us closer to this technological future include the following:

Data Centers Tapping into Local and State Resources Are Presumed Rejected Unless They Meet Local and State Approval Processes

While public infrastructure on federal land is generally exempt from local zoning laws, Congress can act to ensure that where data center development taps into local or state public resources—such as public aquifers or regional transmission lines—all development must abide by state and local approval processes, including the ability for communities to reject incoming development where it does not abide by locally set standards.¹ 

All Data Centers on Federal Land Must Be Publicly Owned and Used for the Benefit of Public Research

All agencies (including land and water management agencies) must restrict data center development on federal lands and waters to advance work that supports, democratizes, or advances public R & D technology mandates. These facilities should be owned and operated by public research institutions and should provide computing and data initiatives to support alternative AI research trajectories outside the “bigger is better” scaling paradigm, alongside non-AI research that still requires access to large scale computing. Research housed in federal data centers cannot be used to support the defense industry, weapons research, military expansion, fossil-fuel extraction and combustion, nuclear permitting, predictive policing systems, immigration enforcement, and other harms to be specified in the development process.

Specify That Federal Data Centers Are Not Exempt from State Utility Processes

Federal and regional energy regulators, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), can formalize clear rules for colocation of large loads from data centers and power generation. Colocation policies must not risk creating de facto pathways for AI data centers that preference their development over renewable-energy generation projects.² In other words, polluting power plants must not power AI data centers both behind and in front of the meter while the grid around it feels associated price fluctuations, reliability issues, and ambient regional system stress.³

Such policies must require full participation in state utility processes and include equity and sustainability guarantees. Federal data centers must participate in holistic transmission planning and cost burden analyses on local ratepayers, and must meet renewable energy mandates. Such state utility processes ensure both industry accountability to the public and grid accessibility, and safeguard progress toward state-level renewable-energy goals.

Institute Binding Renewable Energy Requirements

Data centers serviced on federal land cannot be served by oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Require that data centers procure or subscribe to locally deliverable, additional, and zero-emissions renewable energy at all hours of the day, every day of the year, as a condition for receiving federal approval. All energy generation colocated on federal land must be renewable energy. Diesel backup generators are prohibited.

Data Centers Must Offset Tax Exemptions

Because public land is not subject to local and state taxes, Congress can require a payment in lieu of taxes (also known as a PILOT agreement) equivalent to the full tax value of all property taxes and taxable assets (such as computer peripherals and electricity sales tax).

Require Comprehensive Transparency Mechanisms and Monthly Reporting

Require all projects on federal land to abide by strict transparency requirements, reported monthly to a federal agency charged with monitoring, tracking, and enforcing transparency requirements. For a breakout of these recommendations, see “Establish Federal Oversight and Transparency Mechanisms.”

1. Under the Property Clause in Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, Congress has plenary authority over federal lands and may, through legislation, condition federal land use in compliance with state and local regulatory regimes. What’s more, federal facilities are generally immune from state permitting requirements under the Supremacy Clause in Art. VI, cl. 2. But Congress can waive that immunity with a clear directive. For example, Congress has expressly subjected federal development to state and local approval processes, as it has done under the Clean Air Act in 42 U.S.C. § 7418 and other cooperative federalism statutes. As such, Congress may require that data center development on public lands accessing aquifers or transmission infrastructure comply with state and local permitting requirements, including denial where locally adopted standards are not satisfied. ↩︎
2. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions, “FERC Orders Action on Co-Location Issues Related to Data Centers Running AI,” February 20, 2025, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-orders-action-co-location-issues-related-data-centers-running-ai; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Fact Sheet: FERC Directs Nation’s Largest Grid Operator to Create New Rules to Embrace Innovation and Protect Consumers,” December 18, 2025, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/fact-sheet-ferc-directs-nations-largest-grid-operator-create-new-rules-embrace. ↩︎
3. Justin Kollar, “Planning Under Preemption: State Power and Local Authority in the AI Data Center Era,” Journal of the American Planning Association, February 18, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2026.2618221. ↩︎

The federal government has for too long subsidized the largest companies in the world, offering billions of dollars in tax breaks and other vehicles of financial support while actively defunding institutions that shore up the broader public welfare. As a first measure, the federal government should repeal or roll back federal tax incentives and subsidies given to AI firms and data center speculators to prevent the government from backstopping the AI industry, as outlined in Reject the Bailout for AI Firms. 

Second, the federal government can play an important role in shaping the kinds of public infrastructure that private industry is not incentivized to develop. This strategy opens up space to consider how technological development—including data centers—might unfold if it were guided by public-interest objectives rather than private control over the AI stack. 

Congress can achieve this by attaching bold, enforceable conditions onto all existing federal funding, grants, tax exemptions,¹ and financial support² going into data centers. This is a way for Congress to reassert congressional authority over federal investment and ensure taxpayer dollars are accountable to the public. These conditions would require any AI firm or data center company receiving federal funding to abide by the strictest possible requirements for data center development, including full deference to local and state authorities.

These conditions should not be used to justify additional federal funding for any aspect of the tech or data center industry, and include the following:

Establish Binding Authority and a Mandate to Enforce

Conditions must be attached in clear, binding language and contain strong enforcement mechanisms, including a mandate to enforce.

Automatic Clawback Provisions with Independent Verification

All assistance—tax expenditures, grants, loans, loan guarantees, preferential tariffs, expedited permitting, and federally backed infrastructure—must include automatic, proportional clawbacks for noncompliance and must be verified through independent data (e.g., unemployment insurance wage records for job claims; audited utility invoices and interconnection cost ledgers for cost-shifting claims; or verified tax expenditure schedules for abatements). Specify that company self-attestations do not satisfy compliance. Repeated noncompliance triggers termination of assistance, repayment with interest, and ineligibility for future support.

Condition: Deference to Local and State Authority

Data centers receiving federal funding must abide by all local and state approval requirements. The federal government cannot provide expedited approvals designed to sidestep local and state authority for data center projects. 

Condition: No Tax Abatements or Subsidies for Data Centers

Stipulate that any firms receiving federal funds, grants, tax credits, or investment for the purposes of data center development or accompanying infrastructure cannot abate local or state taxes. (Note: See recommendation for repealing all federal tax subsidies and credits for data center projects.)

Condition: Prohibition on Stock Buybacks

All companies receiving federal support for data center development are prohibited from using any funds to engage in stock buybacks within a set period of time. This prohibition must be stated explicitly and clearly, and must apply to all funds. Learnings from the IRA and CHIPS Act suggest that a mere “preference” for recipients that “commit” to not engage in stock buybacks is insufficient. During the early CHIPS Act implementation, the Department of Commerce had discretion to encourage recipients to refrain from stock buybacks as a condition of receiving CHIPS Act subsidies. A 2024 report from the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) highlighted that although the statute prohibits CHIPS funds for buybacks, firms with large prior buyback histories could still engage in buybacks while benefiting from federal subsidies.³ Stronger implementation guidance and tighter federal guardrails are necessary to ensure incentives support real investment instead of freeing up capital for shareholder distributions.

Condition: Restrictions on Corporate Executive Compensation

No executive and C-suite level staff of any company involved in the building, financing, or operating of data centers receiving federal investment should be allowed to make in excess of $5 million (including equity and benefits) until robust, comprehensive regulations are in place protecting the public from data center harms.

Condition: Ratepayer Protection Requirements

Data centers must pay for 100 percent of the costs necessary to service them, including transmission, energy generation, capacity, and financing costs.

Condition: Prohibition on Diesel Generators

Stipulate that any data centers receiving federal funds cannot use on-site diesel generators.

Condition: Renewable Energy Requirements

Data centers receiving federal support cannot be served by oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Require that data centers procure or subscribe to locally deliverable, additional, and zero-emissions renewable energy at all hours of the day, every day of the year, as a condition for receiving federal approval. All energy generation colocated on federal land must be renewable energy. Diesel backup generators are prohibited.

Condition: Fair Labor Requirements

Note: Data centers are not significant permanent job creators; many of the promised jobs tend to be temporary construction positions or low-paid, temporary, subcontracted data center operations roles. Establishing fair labor requirements could offset some harm, but would not address the underlying reality.

High-Quality, Stable, and Local Jobs

Funding must require data centers to hire full-time data center staff from the local population or partner with community organizations on first-source hiring programs. These employees should be directly employed by the data center operator and not hired as subcontractors. Funding must also require neutrality agreements to provide space for union organizing on-site. For construction jobs, localities should demand project labor agreements with a commitment that construction projects will employ local building-trade union workers. Funding may also require prioritizing the hiring of underrepresented groups in specific industries or labor markets—such as women in construction or veterans.

Wages

Jobs should pay, at a minimum, a living wage adjusted annually for inflation. Ideally, wages should align with market-based standards tied to the state or regional median wage for the data center industry. There must be pay equity for equal work between contractors and the data center company’s own employees.

Benefits

Employers should be required to provide health insurance and cover at least 50 percent of the premium cost for each worker. Localities should also demand that data centers provide childcare to all workers.

Health, Safety, and Well-Being

Localities should regulate working conditions, including ensuring there is an adequate break room with strong health and safety standards.

Condition: Require Comprehensive Transparency Mechanisms and Monthly Reporting

Require all projects receiving federal support to abide by strict transparency requirements, reported monthly to a federal agency charged with monitoring, tracking, and enforcing transparency requirements.

Before Operation Begins

Require the following information to be certified in a public clearinghouse (a publicly available database). Federal agencies should retain the right to revoke or suspend data center permits for failure to adequately disclose the following metrics:

Financial Vehicles

Names of all companies involved in a data center project (including developer, shell companies, data center operators and/or end users, and financers). Require disclosure of the ultimate parent company and beneficial ownership for all entities involved. Require that any subsidy caps, eligibility limits, disclosure requirements, and enforcement actions apply to the parent company aggregated across all subsidiaries, affiliates, special purpose vehicles (SPVs), and joint ventures so that firms cannot evade limits by shifting ownership to SPVs.

Water Usage

Comprehensive accounting of the data center’s projected water usage (broken out by month), including projected water used in construction, server cooling, facility cooling (including cooling towers) and other ancillary water uses; projected water sources; anticipated water-conservation plan; and water infrastructure costs.

Energy Usage and Infrastructure Needs

Comprehensive accounting of the data center’s projected monthly energy usage; breakdown of all necessary costs to service them, including transmission, energy generation, capacity, and financing costs.

Energy Emissions and Air Quality

Projected value of all on-site energy emissions. Require the installation and use of best-in-class technology to continuously monitor and report air quality.

Labor

Require projected breakout of temporary and permanent jobs, including number of full-time employees, subcontractors, and temporary workers. Require union labor where possible.

After Operation Begins

Federal agencies must monitor and enforce transparency metrics. Failure to properly disclose metrics will result in revocation of permit or operating license.

Financial Vehicles

Annual reporting of all companies involved in a data center project (including developer, shell companies, data center operators and/or end users, and financers).

Water Usage

Monthly, comprehensive accounting of the data center’s actual water usage, including projected water used in construction, server cooling, facility cooling (including cooling towers) and other ancillary water uses; projected water sources; anticipated water-conservation plan; and water infrastructure costs.

Energy Usage and Infrastructure Needs

Comprehensive accounting of the data center’s monthly energy usage; annual summary of costs necessary to service the data center, including costs arising from transmission, energy generation, capacity, and financing.

Energy Emissions and Air Quality 

Actual value of all on-site energy emissions and air-quality metrics, reported monthly.

Labor

Require annual breakout of temporary and permanent jobs, including number of full-time employees, subcontractors, temporary workers, and unionization status of all. Include demographics such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, education level, and pay and benefits data for each represented group. Include client overhead cost for the bill-rate per head count of subcontracted workers, organized by job title.

1. Including 100 percent bonus depreciation for IT infrastructure and data center equipment under Public Law 119–21. Public Law 119–21, 119th Cong., 1st sess. (July 4, 2025), 139 Stat. 72. ↩︎
2. This includes “qualifying investment projects” under the July 2025 Executive Order 14318, Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure. ↩︎
3. American Economic Liberties Project, Reshoring and Restoring: CHIPS Implementation for a Competitive Semiconductor Industry, American Economic Liberties Project, page 6, February 6, 2024, https://www.economicliberties.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/20240117-AELP-IndPolSeries-CHIPS-Paper_v4-1.pdf. For example, BAE Systems, Inc., a subcontractor that received one of the first CHIPS awards ($35 million), was in the midst of a multibillion‑dollar stock repurchase program, including roughly $3 billion in buybacks in 2021–22 and another $1.9 billion authorized in 2023. ↩︎

Data centers are incorrectly framed as “economic development” opportunities. The reality is that state and local governments are granting data centers sales and use-tax exemptions, stripping valuable tax money away from communities. This is especially true for public schools, since property taxes remain the largest source of K–12 funding. These subsidies pull valuable tax dollars away from governments and exacerbate municipal budget crises. At the same time, data centers are driving up utility rates, making people’s bills more expensive, and exacerbating an affordability crisis. Federal policymakers can act to ensure that public dollars are not underwriting speculative AI growth while our households and government budgets are subject to increased austerity measures.

Repeal or Roll Back Federal Tax Incentives and Subsidies Given to AI Firms and Data Center Speculators

Repeal or roll back all federal tax subsidies and credits for data center infrastructure, such as the 100 percent bonus depreciation for IT infrastructure and data center equipment under Public Law 119–21¹ or the 45Q credit for carbon sequestration technologies.² 

Prohibit Corporate Tax Abatements for Data Centers

Federal policymakers can explicitly disqualify data centers from economic development incentives, including sales and use-tax exemptions, corporate income tax credits (investment or job creation), personal income tax diversions, utility tax exemptions, and local property tax abatements or millage preferences, regardless of whether the subsidy is offered through a data-center-specific statute or a general economic development program.³

1. Public Law 119-21, 119th Cong., 1st sess. (July 4, 2025), 139 Stat. ↩︎
2. 26 U.S.C. § 45Q (2023). ↩︎
3. Kasia Tarczynska, “Data Centers: Key Reforms for State Subsidy Legislation,” Good Jobs First, September 23, 2025, https://goodjobsfirst.org/data-centers-best-reforms-for-state-subsidy-legislation. ↩︎

Federal policymakers must use their federal authority to investigate circular spending deals, clearly demarcating where deals turn from a sound investment strategy into a fraudulent round-tripping transaction,¹ “a term regulators have used for sham trades with no economic substance that are designed to inflate reported results.”²

1. Alix Dunn, “Are AI Companies Cooking the Books?” (podcast), Computer Says Maybe, September 30, 2025, https://www.themaybe.org/podcast/are-ai-companies-cooking-the-books-w-sarah-myers-west. ↩︎
2. Sam, Dottle, Ghosh, and Kim, “A Guide to the Circular Deals.” ↩︎