Donald Trump wants the 2026 midterms to showcase his record, but a lifelong Republican’s anger over data centers illustrates the risk of making every race a referendum on the president. The broader backlash is measurable, even if one voter’s defection cannot predict November.

President Donald Trump has a political resource few presidents possess in a midterm year: a super PAC with more than $400 million in cash and a plan to make himself a central character in elections where his name is not on the ballot.

The strategy is running into a problem that cannot be solved simply by increasing Trump’s visibility. In Texas and elsewhere, voters are focused on local fights over artificial intelligence data centers, electricity demand, water use, utility costs and who gets to decide where the facilities are built.

The clip exposed the tension

That tension surfaced on CNN when host Audie Cornish showed former Trump White House communications director Mike Dubke a clip of Tom Weeks, a lifelong Republican from Granbury, Texas, who has become outspoken about data center development and a nearby cryptocurrency mining operation.

Weeks said his community had been fighting the issue for years and accused Republican leaders of ignoring residents. In the clip, he declared, “I would vote for the devil before I voted for Gov. Abbott,” while saying he had begun listening to Democratic candidates, including U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico.

The Washington Post reported that Weeks is 66, retired from the paper supply business and has fought both data centers and a bitcoin mine near Granbury. He has also appeared with Democratic gubernatorial nominee Gina Hinojosa and adopted the “Break Rank” message used by some disaffected conservatives.

Dubke responded by pointing to Republican policy achievements, including tax changes and Trump accounts for children. He then argued that if Trump is going to appear in midterm advertising, he should talk about what the administration has accomplished.

The exchange captured the strategic divide: Republicans can run on a national record, but voters such as Weeks may be judging the party on an unresolved local conflict that does not fit neatly into a White House accomplishments list.

Trump wants more Trump

The Atlantic reported that Trump convened top political advisers in the Oval Office in early August to discuss how to deploy MAGA Inc.’s cash stockpile with fewer than 100 days remaining before the November elections. Some Republican strategists favored emphasizing individual candidates and local issues. Trump preferred a campaign that would defend and promote his own record.

That does not mean all $400 million has been committed to television ads about Trump. The more precise point is that Trump and his advisers are deciding how to use a super PAC holding roughly that amount, and reporting indicates that ads centered on the president’s record are a significant part of the plan.

Federal Election Commission data put MAGA Inc.’s cash on hand at about $403.45 million through July 31. The committee reported more than $400.6 million in receipts from the start of 2025 through that date, making the scale of the operation independently verifiable.

Trump has also said he intends to spend heavily to help Republican candidates. His former White House political director James Blair, now involved in the midterm operation, previously said the president would expend substantial resources because he wants the party to win.

The money is starting to move

For much of the cycle, Republican strategists wondered when MAGA Inc. would begin using its money in consequential races. That question became more concrete this week.

The super PAC spent more than $827,000 to support Darline Graham in the South Carolina Republican Senate runoff, according to the Associated Press. CNN described the expenditure as notable because MAGA Inc. had spent relatively little in other midterm contests despite its huge balance.

Graham’s race also offered a preview of the approach Trump appears to favor. Trump endorsed her, campaigned for her, and MAGA Inc.’s late push reinforced the idea that voters should treat the contest as connected to the president’s political standing.

That may work especially well in Republican primaries or deeply conservative states. The harder question is whether the same model helps candidates in competitive general elections where persuadable voters are more concerned about costs, local development or unpopular national issues than about loyalty to Trump.

Data centers are now political

The data center fight is no longer a niche zoning dispute. Gallup found in a March survey that 71% of Americans opposed construction of an AI data center in their local area, including 48% who were strongly opposed. Opposition crossed party lines.

Gallup said opponents frequently cited electricity and water consumption, environmental effects, quality of life concerns and possible effects on costs. Those worries track closely with disputes now appearing in state and local campaigns.

Texas polling shows the same problem. An August University of Texas/Texas Politics Project survey found 57% of registered Texas voters opposed construction of a data center in their community, while 30% supported it. The result was almost unchanged from June.

ERCOT’s own February monthly report showed why the politics are so intense. More than 232,000 megawatts of proposed large loads were in its interconnection process, with data centers accounting for roughly 72% of that total. Not every project will be built, but the queue illustrates the extraordinary scale of demand under consideration.

That matters because Texas has spent years marketing itself as friendly territory for technology and energy investment. AI infrastructure has now created a collision between that pro growth identity and voters who want more control over what is built near their homes.

Abbott has already changed course

Gov. Greg Abbott’s response shows how seriously Republican leaders are taking the backlash. In June, he directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to protect residential customers from infrastructure costs associated with new data centers.

Abbott said data centers should fully fund the electric infrastructure needed to serve them rather than shifting those costs to residential ratepayers. He also called for future measures involving water efficient cooling, more accurate reporting of electricity and water usage, and changes to tax incentives.

The state moved again in August. ERCOT said Abbott required a verification process before data center “large loads” could advance through part of the grid interconnection process. The grid operator delayed steps in what it calls its Batch Zero process while consulting state regulators.

Those actions are more than campaign rhetoric, but they do not amount to a permanent statewide ban. They are administrative and regulatory steps designed to slow or condition development while the state reassesses costs and standards.

Democrats argue that Abbott acted only after years of encouraging the industry. Abbott, meanwhile, says developers brought the backlash on themselves by failing to address community concerns.

Texas races make the stakes clear

The political consequences are visible in two statewide races. Abbott is seeking another term against Hinojosa, while Attorney General Ken Paxton is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate against Talarico.

Talarico has proposed tighter data center regulation, including requirements that large energy users pay their own infrastructure and interconnection costs, expanded local authority over siting decisions, changes to tax breaks and stronger water use rules. Hinojosa has called for more aggressive action from Abbott.

Paxton has also released a data center plan as Republican voter anger has grown. The Washington Post reported that the dispute has become a pressure point in his race against Talarico.

The latest University of Texas/Texas Politics Project poll found Talarico leading Paxton 42% to 39% in the Senate matchup, while Abbott remained ahead in the governor’s race. Those figures are snapshots, not forecasts, but they show a competitive Senate contest where a cross party issue could matter.

Dubke’s response shows the challenge

Dubke’s instinct on CNN was understandable from a communications standpoint. If Trump is going to dominate Republican advertising, the most useful version of that strategy would be to connect him to policies voters believe improved their lives.

But Weeks’ complaint was not that he had never heard a list of Republican accomplishments. His complaint was that he believed elected Republicans had failed to respond to a fight affecting his community.

That difference helps explain why generic national messaging can miss the force of local backlash. A voter can approve of a tax provision and still oppose a data center. A Republican can support Trump on immigration and still resent state officials over electricity infrastructure or land use decisions.

The risk for Republicans is not necessarily that voters like Weeks become committed Democrats. Some may split their tickets, skip certain races or vote against individual officeholders while remaining conservative on most issues.

That is why the clip is politically interesting without being proof of a mass realignment. It shows a path by which a normally reliable voter can detach from party loyalty when a local issue becomes personal enough.

One angry voter is not Texas

There are limits to the lesson. Texas has not suddenly become a Democratic state because one lifelong Republican is furious about data centers. Republicans have dominated statewide elections for decades, and Abbott remains ahead in current polling.

Nor does opposition to data centers automatically translate into support for Democrats. Republican candidates can adopt tougher regulations, demand that developers absorb infrastructure costs or give local governments more authority. Abbott’s recent moves show the party is already trying to neutralize the issue.

Still, the polling makes clear that Weeks’ underlying concern is not isolated. When 57% of Texas voters oppose a data center in their community and national Gallup data show opposition across party lines, campaigns have reason to treat the issue as a genuine political variable.

That is especially relevant for Trump because his midterm strategy appears designed to nationalize congressional contests around his presidency.

What Trump’s gamble requires

Trump’s approach could help Republicans if his visibility energizes voters who otherwise stay home in nonpresidential elections. MAGA Inc.’s financial advantage gives his political operation the ability to advertise at a scale most candidates could never match on their own.

But the same strategy also makes Trump responsible for answering grievances that originate far from Washington. If an ad tells voters the administration has delivered economic progress while residents believe a nearby project is threatening their water supply, power bill or quality of life, the message may fail to address the reason they are angry.

The Texas data center fight therefore offers a useful test of the larger midterm plan. Trump has the money to make himself unavoidable. What remains uncertain is whether making the election more about Trump can overcome issues that voters experience as local, immediate and unresolved.

Weeks does not establish the outcome of that test. He does, however, illustrate the vulnerability: a president can dominate the airwaves, but even a $400 million political machine cannot choose which problem a voter considers most important.