Could Democrats’ investigations derail America’s AI boom? What investors fear after the midterms

America’s artificial intelligence boom is facing a new political test. A sweeping Democratic victory in the US midterm elections has raised the prospect of tougher scrutiny of data centre investments, tax incentives and corporate dealings with the Trump administration, sending shares of several companies linked to the AI infrastructure boom sharply lower.

The market reaction on Wednesday exposed a growing divide within the technology sector. While shares of major technology companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet advanced, smaller data centre operators, power producers and companies supplying the AI infrastructure industry came under pressure.

Investors are concerned that a Democratic-controlled Congress, alongside newly elected Democratic governors in key states such as Texas and Georgia, could make it harder and more expensive to build the infrastructure needed to support the AI boom.

The result is also a setback for Elon Musk, who spent heavily to help Republicans retain political power. Musk contributed an estimated $474 million to federal and state political groups during the 2026 election cycle, according to a New York Times analysis of campaign finance filings. Around $216 million went to his America PAC, while another $168 million went to the Senate Leadership Fund, a major super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates.

Texas was one of the biggest tests of Musk’s political influence. His America PAC spent more than $33 million on efforts to help Republican Ken Paxton. Paxton lost to Democrat James Talarico in the Senate race. Democrats also won the gubernatorial contest, with Gina Hinojosa defeating Republican incumbent Greg Abbott. The result is significant for Musk, whose companies have a substantial presence in Texas, including Tesla’s headquarters and a major manufacturing facility.

More from Business

Musk’s political operation also backed Republican candidates in other battleground states, including Michigan and Wisconsin. The scale of his spending underlined how closely he had tied himself to the Republican effort to retain control of Congress. The election results have raised questions about the influence that money can buy, particularly as Democrats prepare to scrutinise corporate relationships with the Trump administration.

Why data centre stocks fell after the Democratic victory

The sell-off was particularly sharp among companies whose growth depends on the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure.

Shares of Core Scientific fell 11.6 per cent and IREN dropped 12.5 per cent on Wednesday. Other companies, including Applied Digital, Hut 8 and Cipher Digital, also declined. Power companies such as GE Vernova, Constellation Energy and Vistra came under pressure as investors reassessed the outlook for electricity demand from new data centres.

The political shift has created uncertainty around the pace of new construction. Data centres require enormous amounts of electricity, water, land and supporting infrastructure. Their expansion has increasingly faced opposition from residents who fear the facilities could push up household electricity bills without creating enough local jobs or economic benefits.

The issue is particularly important in Texas, which has emerged as one of America’s biggest destinations for data centre investment. The state accounts for roughly a quarter of the US data centre capacity expected to come online by 2030, according to estimates.

Hinojosa had campaigned for a pause on new data centre development, while Talarico also won the state’s Senate race. In Georgia, Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms won the gubernatorial contest, strengthening the position of opponents of rapid data centre expansion in another major technology infrastructure market.

Goldman Sachs sees risks to 45 per cent of planned data centre capacity

Goldman Sachs estimated that Democratic victories in Texas, Michigan and Georgia could put around 45 per cent of planned US data centre capacity at risk from possible construction restrictions, tighter regulations and changes to tax incentives.

This does not mean that nearly half of planned projects will be cancelled. It indicates the share of proposed capacity that could be exposed to policy changes in these states.

The risks are particularly high for smaller data centre operators that have borrowed heavily to expand. These companies often spend substantial amounts before their facilities begin generating revenue. Delays in construction or commercial operations could put additional pressure on their balance sheets.

The concerns also extend to companies supplying the infrastructure. Manufacturers of power equipment, cooling systems and electrical components depend on continued investment in new facilities. If developers postpone projects, suppliers could see orders pushed back.

Analysts have cautioned against interpreting the election result as the end of America’s AI infrastructure expansion. Demand for computing power remains strong, and companies are unlikely to abandon investments simply because the political environment has become more challenging.

What investigations are Democrats planning?

The prospect of investigations adds another layer of uncertainty for technology companies.

Democrats had signalled their intention to examine the AI industry even before the midterm elections. On October 29, Reuters reported that Senate Democrats were preparing investigations into data centre taxation, private equity and concerns surrounding artificial intelligence if they won control of the chamber.

Daniel Goshorn, chief investigative counsel for Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, identified data centre taxation and public opposition to AI as areas lawmakers wanted to examine. Senator Ron Wyden, who is expected to lead the committee under Democratic control, has also made data centre taxation a priority.

One area of concern is the tax incentives offered by state and local governments to attract large technology projects. Democrats argue that companies should not receive substantial public subsidies while shifting the cost of additional electricity and infrastructure to households and taxpayers.

Lawmakers could examine how much public revenue governments are foregoing, whether these incentives are justified and whether companies are meeting the economic commitments they made when securing them.

There is already an example of congressional scrutiny. On September 30, Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin launched an inquiry into Amazon, Google, Meta and Oracle over their use of non-disclosure agreements with local government officials during data centre negotiations.

Raskin sought information on whether these agreements prevented officials from discussing important details of proposed projects with residents, including electricity and water requirements, taxpayer-funded incentives and the potential impact on household utility bills. He also questioned whether confidentiality agreements were being used to conceal the companies involved in some developments.

The companies were asked to provide copies of their agreements and explain their practices. With control of congressional committees, Democrats could now expand such inquiries, seek additional documents and call company executives and government officials to testify.

Why Trump’s corporate connections are also under scrutiny

The investigations are not expected to stop at data centre taxation and environmental concerns. Democrats have also been preparing a broader examination of companies and financial firms with links to the Trump administration.

In August, Reuters reported that Democratic lawmakers were developing a strategy to investigate businesses and individuals in Trump’s political and financial network rather than immediately pursuing impeachment.

The proposed approach included congressional hearings, subpoenas and requests for corporate records. Lawmakers wanted to examine whether government decisions had benefited the president’s political allies, donors or business associates.

Companies discussed in the context of potential scrutiny included Apple, Alphabet, Palantir, Blackstone and BlackRock, as well as businesses owned by Musk.

Musk is a particularly prominent example because of his involvement in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and his leadership of companies with significant government relationships.

SpaceX has contracts with NASA and the US national security establishment, while Tesla operates in an industry influenced by federal incentives and regulatory decisions. Democrats have previously raised questions about potential conflicts of interest arising from Musk’s government role and his private business interests.

The prospect of greater scrutiny does not mean these companies have been found to have acted improperly. But congressional hearings and demands for documents could create reputational and regulatory uncertainty for businesses with close government ties.

Why some Big Tech companies are actually benefiting

The market reaction has not been uniformly negative for the technology industry.

Amazon, Microsoft, Meta Platforms and Alphabet gained on Wednesday as investors considered whether a slower pace of data centre construction could benefit companies that already have substantial computing infrastructure.

Amazon shares rose 7.4 per cent, while Meta, Alphabet and Microsoft gained between 2 per cent and 6.3 per cent. If those gains held, the five biggest US technology companies, including Apple, were on course to add more than $750 billion in combined market value, Reuters reported.

The reasoning is relatively straightforward. Large technology companies have been spending heavily to build their own data centres and secure computing capacity. A slower expansion by smaller competitors could make existing infrastructure more valuable and reduce the risk of excess capacity.

The spending commitments are enormous. Major technology companies are expected to spend more than $740 billion on capital expenditure this year, compared with roughly $400 billion last year, according to Reuters.

This creates a divide between companies that own and operate large technology platforms and those that depend on financing to build infrastructure for them. Smaller operators such as Applied Digital and IREN have been spending several times their revenue to meet demand and expand their project pipelines. If construction slows, their ability to convert investments into revenue could come under pressure.

A slower buildout could also ease some pressure on the capital expenditure plans of major technology companies. Investors have increasingly questioned whether the huge sums being spent on AI infrastructure will generate sufficient returns.

Could tougher rules make AI infrastructure more expensive?

The biggest potential changes for the industry could come through taxation, electricity pricing and project approvals.

Democrats have argued that large technology companies should bear the full cost of the additional electricity infrastructure required to operate their data centres rather than passing those costs on to ordinary consumers.

The issue has already featured in congressional debates. In September, the US Senate blocked the Ratepayer Protection Act, which sought to require state utility regulators to consider whether large electricity users, including data centres, should pay for the additional power infrastructure built to serve them.

Democrats argued that the legislation did not go far enough to protect consumers. They have also supported proposals requiring large data centres to cover the cost of grid upgrades needed for their operations.

A Democratic-controlled Congress could use hearings and investigations to increase pressure on companies and regulators. It could also push legislation aimed at improving transparency around data centre energy consumption and public subsidies.

For developers, the consequences could include higher electricity costs, fewer tax concessions and longer approval processes.

But there is an important distinction between congressional investigations and the power to stop construction. Land-use decisions, local permits and several electricity infrastructure approvals fall under state and local jurisdictions. Democratic victories in Texas and Georgia could therefore have a more immediate impact on individual projects than investigations in Washington.

At the same time, President Donald Trump continues to support the expansion of America’s AI capabilities. His administration is unlikely to voluntarily abandon its technology investment ambitions, particularly as the US competes with China in artificial intelligence and advanced computing.

This could create a policy conflict between the White House’s push to expand AI infrastructure and Democratic lawmakers’ demands for greater accountability over its costs.

What investors will watch next

The new Congress is expected to take office in January 2027. Its first months could provide a clearer indication of how aggressively Democrats intend to pursue investigations into technology companies and the wider corporate sector.

Investors will be watching three areas.

First, whether Democratic lawmakers move beyond hearings and information requests to propose changes to data centre tax incentives and electricity pricing.

Second, whether newly elected state governments in Texas and Georgia introduce restrictions or temporary pauses on new data centre projects. Such decisions could directly affect construction timelines and investment plans.

Third, whether investigations expand to companies with major government contracts and financial relationships with the Trump administration. This could create additional uncertainty for defence contractors, technology companies and businesses dependent on federal spending.

There are limits to what Democrats can achieve. Congressional investigations do not automatically lead to criminal cases, regulatory penalties or cancelled contracts. Major legislative changes would face opposition from Republicans and could be vetoed by Trump.

The AI industry’s long-term prospects will also depend on whether companies can turn their enormous infrastructure spending into sustainable revenue. Questions over financing, excess capacity and returns on investment were already weighing on technology stocks before the midterm results.

(With inputs from agencies.)