On Friday’s edition of Raw America Live, managing editor Carl Gibson sat down with Democratic Congresswoman Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan — who represents the Flint, Saginaw and Bay City area — and covered various topics including:
Her new “Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers Act” legislation and how taxpayers are funding the construction of data centers without their consent
What her constituents in the Mitten State are telling her about the artificial intelligence industry and how data centers are impacting their utility bill
Her vote for the Ratepayer Protection Act, and why she agrees with Senate Democrats that the bill doesn’t do enough to protect Americans from runaway electricity costs
Growing public outrage over Peter Thiel’s AI-powered Flock surveillance cameras, and Democrats’ new bill aimed at reining them in
How Democrats can hold Donald Trump and his administration accountable if they win back control of Congress in the midterms
Raw America is fully reader-supported, editorially independent and not for sale. Live interviews like this, with a sitting member of Congress going in-depth on the biggest issues in the upcoming midterms, only happen because of readers who believe in independent journalism enough to fund it. If you’ve been considering supporting Raw America with a paying subscription, today is the day to make it official. Join for just 22 cents a day.
“The American People Are Paying for the Construction of the Data Centers”
Gibson began the interview by asking McDonald Rivet about the bill she recently introduced, dubbed the “Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers Act.” That bill repeals two significant tax breaks for data center development — the 100 percent bonus depreciation deduction and eligibility for opportunity zone tax credits — that were included in Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) that became law in 2025.
The Michigan Democrat said those provisions were slipped into the legislation with little scrutiny at the time, pointing out that much of the bill was “added literally in the middle of the night,” and that “there wasn’t anybody who voted on it that knew the extent of what was there.”
McDonald Rivet emphasized that the corporations that benefited from those tax breaks are “some of the wealthiest companies in the country, linked to the wealthiest men in the country.” She noted that thanks to the OBBBA, those companies can effectively write off the full cost of building a data center, shifting those cost onto the public.
“The American people are paying for the construction of the data centers,” McDonald Rivet said. She reminded viewers that communities currently have no solid regulatory guarantee from the federal government that they even get a say in whether a data center gets built in their backyard.
The Democratic lawmaker also delved into how the bonus depreciation provision is a slick accounting maneuver that’s particularly costly to taxpayers. Companies used to take deductions for wear and tear on buildings over 30 years. But that tax break allows for those decades of deductions to instead be fully claimed in the very first year.
“It is this wild expansion of no taxes on building data centers across the country, including an incentive to do it in rural areas and build on our farmland,” McDonald Rivet said. “It’s crazy.”
Why Data Centers Are a Poor Excuse for Job Creation
Gibson observed that data centers have become an unexpected flashpoint in the 2026 midterm cycle, with Americans becoming increasingly anger about the facilities’ excessive consumption of local water supplies, skyrocketing utility bills for residents and excessive noise and air pollution. He asked what concerns McDonald Rivet’s constituents are voicing about data centers.
The congresswoman said data center concerns go hand-in-glove with broader fears about the artificial intelligence industry. She acknowledged that while most people aren’t up to speed on the details of complex policy, they’re all extremely worried about what AI means for both their own jobs, along with their children’s and grandchildren’s earning potential. She also acknowledged that fear runs deep in Michigan, which she was was “decimated by [the North American Free Trade Agreement] in the 1990s.
“Our jobs have never really recovered from that,” McDonald Rivet said. “So when we hear new technology, when we hear something that sounds like it’s not quite right, we worry about it.”
The freshman lawmaker argued for smart policy can would subject data centers to new regulations that may make them more palatable to the public. That includes giving communities actual input on where data centers would be built, and prioritizing development on land that can’t otherwise be used, like former coal plant sites and EPA Superfund locations. But she said safeguarding precious natural resources and keeping utility bills in check are also major priorities.
“In places like Michigan, nobody can pay more for their electricity bill. It is already off the charts,” McDonald Rivet said. “Our data centers need to be required, with no wiggle room, to have their own source of energy in a closed-loop system where they can’t access any of our water, especially here in the Great Lakes.”
She summed up her constituents’ view on the issue by saying that while the Mitten State needs jobs, “it can’t be done by rolling over people in the community.”
Why She Still Supports the Ratepayer Protection Act Even Though It Doesn’t Go Far Enough
While on the topic of utility costs, Gibson pointed out that Senate Democrats blocked the Ratepayer Protection Act this week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York calling it “toothless” as it doesn’t actually contain any legally binding requirements for data center developers to pay for their own power usage. The bill had passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 417-3, with McDonald Rivet voting with the majority. Gibson asked whether her position on the bill had changed in light of Senate Democrats’ opposition.
The congresswoman called herself a “Midwest practical,” saying that while she would still vote yes if the bill came up again, she also agreed with Schumer’s assessment that the bill falls far short of what’s actually needed.
“That was the only legislation we had before us at the time in the House, and it is a teeny tiny baby step in the right direction,” she said. “But it certainly isn’t something that’s seen as a solution to the problem.”
She acknowledged that the bill’s biggest flaw is that nearly everything is voluntary, in that it only makes suggestions that states should consider when it comes to data center developers funding their own power usage. She pointed to her own experience as a mother of six to make her point.
“When I tell my 16-year-old that his curfew is 11 o’clock, that’s not me making a suggestion to him,” McDonald Rivet said. “That is me saying you have to be in this house at 11 o’clock, and if you are not, there are consequences.”
She lamented that while almost every American wants to see real limits with real consequences imposed on data center developers, the current Republican majority in Congress can’t be counted on to deliver them. However, she expressed her optimism that a potential new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would be able to set legally binding standards for data centers and AI “with the urgency that most people want us to have.”
Enjoying this interview? Become a paying member of Raw America and help us keep bringing you discussions like these.
How Flock Cameras Symbolize the “Broken Trust Between the Government and the American People”
Gibson then asked Congresswoman McDonald Rivet about the AI-powered Flock surveillance cameras that have popped up across the country, noting that they’re primarily funded by right-wing billionaires Peter Thiel of Palantir and Marc Andreessen of Andreesen Horowitz.
On Friday, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York officially introduced legislation that would ban federal agencies from using Flock cameras and accessing the data they’re collecting on millions of Americans. Gibson then asked what McDonald Rivet’s constituents think about Flock cameras and whether she’d support the bill.
The Michigan Democratic observed that while Flock cameras are “a conversation in every community,” the unease surrounding them is rooted in something deeper, pointing to “the complete broken trust between the government and the American people.”
She said this is visible in seeing how most young adults are locked out of the American dream of homeownership. McDonald Rivet said that while was able to buy her first home at age 26, her own adult children in their 20s and 30s “can’t even come close to thinking about buying a house.” She said that lack of opportunity to build sealth combined with members of Congress trading in stocks and the conflict of interest that creates naturally leads to distrust of systems and institutions among most of the public.
McDonald Rivet added that while she believes local law enforcement agencies using Flock cameras are mostly doing so in good faith, she said constituents’ concerns about data collection are valid. She went on to say that while she hadn’t yet read the full text of the Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez bill, she still supported its goals.
“Our data is something that is not just a bunch of numbers. Our data are the things that are uniquely ours and make us uniquely vulnerable when they get out,” the congresswoman said. She then linked the issue to broader threats to Americans’ right to privacy, including efforts to hand over state voter rolls to the Trump administration.
“The Flock cameras are just one piece in pretty rightful concern about the way that our data is shared, manipulated, and monetized,” she said, “and we have to stand up to it.”
The Top Priority of a Potential New Democratic Majority
In the final minutes of the interview, Gibson raised a concern on many voters’ minds: even if Democrats succeed in winning back control of one or even both chambers of Congress, Trump will still control the White House, his appointees will still be in charge of all federal agencies and the Supreme Court will still continue granting him favorable rulings. Given that reality, Gibson asked McDonald Rivet what assurances Democrats can give Americans that they’ll still be able to hold the Trump administration accountable.
The freshman Democrat explained that the approach should be based on two pillars. The first would be conducting the oversight that the Republican majority has so far abandoned. She noted that if Democrats have committee gavels, they can conduct public hearings and issue subpoenas to administration officials enriching themselves in office. She said some examples of things to investigate would be people with business before the Supreme Court giving lavish gifts to justices from, along with the president’s own personal finances.
McDonald Rivet said Democrats need to use the power of committees to get to the bottom of how the president “has added $2 billion to his personal wealth since taking office less than two years ago.” She also made sure to state that this kind of Constitutionally guaranteed oversight “is not something we need the permission of the White House to do.”
The second pillar of Democrats’ strategy, McDonald Rivet said, is passing legislation “with teeth.”
“It’s not enough just to investigate it. We actually have to start to put some teeth in the laws,” she said. “The very first thing we need to do — H.R. 1 — needs to be a sweeping anti-corruption package.”
McDonald Rivet said an anti-corruption bill should ban congressional stock trading as well as prevent lawmakers from making money from prediction markets, and that this bill would also impose legally enforceable conflict-of-interest rules on both the White House and the federal judiciary. She also said a proper anti-corruption package would tackle shamelessly partisan efforts to redraw congressional maps.
“Gerrymandering is a form of corruption, and the American people see that,” she said. She explained that the main goal should be to “repair that broken trust with people who are just trying to live their lives.”
Help Us Bring You More Interviews Like These
Raw America strives to bring you real conversations with the people shaping the news, asking the questions you won’t hear on any of the cable networks owned by MAGA billionaires. If you found this interview valuable, help keep this work going by becoming a paying subscriber for just 22 cents a day.
