Wired article: https://www.wired.com/story/us-law-enforcement-warns-of-anti-tech-extremism/
Over the last several years, the United States has seen a massive expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Huge data centers are being built across the country to support AI systems that require enormous amounts of electricity, water, cooling, and land.
Many of these facilities are being built near residential areas, farmland, and already stressed power grids.
At the same time, public concern about artificial intelligence has grown significantly.
Some Americans fear AI will replace jobs.
Others are worried about surveillance, environmental impacts, rising utility costs, and the growing influence of large technology companies over everyday life.
What started as local frustration is now becoming something federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly watching through a national security lens.
According to a major investigation published by WIRED on May 26, 2026, internal documents from DHS, the FBI, and regional fusion centers show authorities are now tracking what officials internally call “anti tech violent extremism.”
That term does not currently appear in public DHS or FBI domestic extremism guidance.
But internally, agencies appear increasingly concerned that hostility toward artificial intelligence, data centers, and technology infrastructure could evolve into violence.
And the concern did not appear out of nowhere.
In April 2026, authorities say 20 year old Daniel Moreno Gama traveled from Texas to San Francisco and threw a Molotov cocktail at the residence of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
Investigators say he later attempted to enter OpenAI headquarters carrying kerosene and an anti AI manifesto while threatening to burn the building down.
That same month, thirteen rounds were fired into the home of Indianapolis councilman Ron Gibson, who supported a local data center project.
Investigators reportedly recovered a message that read: “No Data Centers.”
Federal and regional intelligence centers have also documented increasing online rhetoric advocating sabotage against technology executives, data centers, and energy infrastructure.
Some discussions reportedly referenced Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose anti technology ideology still influences small extremist circles online today.
Now, what makes this story important is not simply the existence of violent actors.
It is the scope of what authorities now appear to be monitoring.
The documents obtained by WIRED describe fusion centers circulating reports tied to potential threats against data centers and AI infrastructure.
Some reports reference concerns involving homegrown violent extremists, environmental extremists, anti government violent extremists, and anarchist influenced actors.
But the reporting also includes activities civil liberties experts argue could overlap with constitutionally protected behavior.
Among the indicators flagged in suspicious activity reporting were:photography of facilities,observation or surveillance,testing security,attempts to access restricted areas,online rhetoric,and organizing around public opposition campaigns.
That matters because many of those same behaviors can also be connected to peaceful activism, journalism, research, or ordinary public opposition.
And this is where the issue becomes far more complicated.
After 9/11, the United States dramatically expanded information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement through the creation of more than 80 regional fusion centers.
These centers were designed to identify emerging threats before violence occurred.
Historically, they have monitored everything from jihadist terrorism to eco extremism, anarchist movements, anti government militias, and organized violent protest activity.
Now, according to these documents, some agencies appear to be adapting those same counterterrorism frameworks toward tensions surrounding artificial intelligence and technology infrastructure.
And the timing matters.
The United States is currently in the middle of a historic AI buildout.
Data centers are becoming critical infrastructure.
They support cloud computing, financial systems, defense contracting, communications networks, and the future development of artificial intelligence itself.
But these facilities also consume enormous resources.
Some communities have raised concerns over water depletion, power grid strain, noise pollution, environmental impact, and rising electricity costs.
Hundreds of organizations across more than 40 states have reportedly mobilized against proposed data center projects.
In multiple states, confrontations at town halls and local government meetings have already resulted in arrests or removals of protesters.
From a security perspective, authorities are likely asking a familiar question
At what point does ideological opposition evolve into violence?
That is not a new dilemma.
Law enforcement faced similar concerns during the rise of eco terrorism in the 1990s, anti globalization protests in the early 2000s, and later during unrest tied to Occupy Wall Street, pipeline protests, and extremist anti government movements.
The challenge has always been distinguishing between constitutionally protected dissent and legitimate pre operational threat activity.
Because in reality, surveillance of infrastructure can mean very different things depending on intent.
A person photographing a data center could be an activist documenting environmental concerns.
Or they could be conducting operational planning for sabotage.
A protest movement criticizing artificial intelligence could represent lawful civic engagement.
Or a small subset within that movement could embrace violence.
Those distinctions are not always easy for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to make in real time.
Civil liberties advocates argue the danger is that broad threat categories can gradually expand beyond violent actors themselves.
Legal experts interviewed by WIRED warned that vague suspicious activity reporting standards have historically resulted in the over surveillance of protest movements, particularly environmental activists, racial justice movements, and anti globalization groups.
The FBI has stated it investigates only individuals involved in violence or criminal activity that poses a threat to national security, not protected speech.
But the broader concern remains.
Artificial intelligence is not simply another technology trend.
It is rapidly reshaping labor, infrastructure, economics, surveillance capabilities, and political power all at the same time.
Historically, periods of major technological disruption often generate backlash movements, radical ideologies, and eventually security concerns.
What appears to be emerging now is the early formation of that exact environment around artificial intelligence in the United States.
And federal authorities are already adapting to it.