TL;DR · 30-second read

The Short Version

The US military is inviting private companies to build giant computer warehouses for artificial intelligence on at least 12 of its bases, from Texas to Alaska. Two projects, each estimated at about $2 billion, have been tentatively awarded.

The military pays nothing up front. In exchange for the land, it gets to use the computers. The catch is that each project must make its own electricity instead of plugging into local power lines, and must not drain local water. In effect, the builders are being asked to build their own power plant too.

Some proposed sites sit half a mile from family homes, and Congress is still arguing over the rules.

Military.com reported on July 27, 2026 that the Army and the Department of the Air Force have opened at least a dozen military installations to commercial data center developers over the past year and a half. Only two deals have been awarded, and both are conditional. In late March the Army selected Carlyle for roughly 1,384 acres at Fort Bliss, Texas. It selected CyrusOne, a data center operator jointly held by funds managed by KKR and BlackRock, for a roughly 1,201-acre parcel at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The Financial Times estimated each project at about $2 billion.

The other sites are still solicitations. The Army is considering Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Air Force has sought bids at Arnold, Edwards, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Davis-Monthan and Robins, and more recently at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Eielson Air Force Base and Clear Space Force Station in Alaska. Proposals must include net-zero water usage and a power plan that does not draw on the local electrical grid. Initial operating capability is projected for fiscal 2027 at Fort Bliss and fiscal 2029 at Dugway.

Executive Summary

The Pentagon is turning spare base land into a currency for AI computing. Under the Army’s Enhanced Use Lease program, private developers finance, build, operate and eventually decommission hyperscale data centers on military land. Hyperscale refers to the warehouse-sized campuses built for the largest cloud and AI workloads. In return the service gets access to computing power, at what the Army calls “no upfront cost to taxpayers.” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has described Fort Bliss as “the first hyper-scale data center that the Pentagon has ever done.”

The terms matter more than the land. Unlike commercial projects off base, these bids must bring a power plan that does not rely on the local grid and must achieve net-zero water use. For developers, that changes the job from building a data center to building a data center plus its own utility. For base commanders and the surrounding communities, siting and power have become part of the procurement itself.

The program is also politically unsettled. A House defense bill provision would bar leases unless developers exclude certain components from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and the Army has objected that the rule would penalize building on federal land.

The Land Is Free. The Power Plant Is Not.

In the commercial market, the scarcest input for a large AI campus is usually a grid connection, not land. A grid connection is the utility’s commitment to deliver large, steady amounts of electricity, and it often comes only after a long wait in an interconnection queue, the line of projects waiting for approval to plug in. The Army and Air Force solicitations rule that path out. Proposals must include a power plan that does not draw on the local electrical grid, a requirement that does not apply to identical projects built off base.

That changes what is actually being procured. The Army’s side of the bargain, land in exchange for computing access, is accurate in cash terms, but it moves the heaviest capital item onto the bidder. Whoever builds at Fort Bliss or Dugway is committing to finance and run generation as well as the data halls. The Army’s long-term vision, as described by Col. John Oliver, is a campus with a commercial side, a classified military data side and onsite power generation. The roughly $2 billion estimate for each project has not been broken down publicly, so nobody outside the negotiations can yet say how much of it is power plant and how much is computing.

The rule is likely to favor sponsors with deep capital and power-development experience, such as a global investment firm like Carlyle or a KKR- and BlackRock-backed operator like CyrusOne, over developers whose model depends on buying utility power. It also changes the utility relationship. El Paso Electric attended the Army’s spring listening session at Fort Bliss, and the Army says excess power generated on base could potentially be sold back to civilian grids. A would-be large customer could become a supplier instead. For residents, the rule speaks directly to the concern behind a Virginia state-funded study, which found monthly household energy bills there could rise by $14 to $37 by 2040 as data centers grow.

Water Is the Second Utility the Bidder Must Bring

Data centers use water to cool their servers, and the net-zero water requirement is hardest to meet at the Army’s flagship site. Defense Department procurement documents reported by Data Center Dynamics rate the water risk for the El Paso area as “Extremely High.” One option under discussion is having Carlyle drill a new well to feed El Paso’s desalination plant and offset what the data center uses. Oliver was candid that this is unproven: “We don’t know if that’s an engineering solution that we can actually get to yet.”

Water and power are linked. Cooling designs that use less water generally use more electricity. In a desert location, a strict water target therefore adds to the size of the on-site generation the developer must build and pay for. The two requirements compound rather than sit side by side.

A Dozen Sites, Two Awards, Very Different Neighbors

The sites vary widely. Dugway, where the military conducts its primary chemical and biological weapons testing, offers three parcels totaling about 3,466 acres, roughly an hour’s drive from the nearest community. Fort Hood has 207 acres on offer, and Fort Bliss has nearly seven times that. Contracting documents show a Fort Hood parcel within a half-mile of residential and commercial property, and several Fort Bragg locations within a mile of civilian areas and a half-mile of civilian housing. Smaller parcels close to homes leave less room for generation, and less buffer for its noise, than a remote range does.

Opposition near homes is not a hypothetical risk. Data Center Watch counts nearly $156 billion in projects nationwide delayed or canceled after local opposition. The Army has built community engagement into the bid: developers must describe outreach plans and assess “any risks or opposition.” Brookings senior fellow Darrell M. West said communities that accept these facilities tend to be the ones told the details up front, including energy source, water use, cost and noise.

Congress Is Still Writing the Rules

Rep. Cory Mills secured a provision in the House fiscal 2027 defense authorization bill barring data center leases unless developers avoid certain printed circuit boards, advanced semiconductors and chipsets made in China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. The Army objected that it would create a “federal land penalty,” imposing rules on installations that would not apply to identical projects anywhere else. Rep. John Garamendi’s proposal to require evaluation of energy, water, noise, light and security effects before any deal was rejected by House Armed Services Republicans. A Senate amendment to pause leasing until the Pentagon finalizes a data center strategy was also defeated.

Each condition adds to the same balance sheet. Free land has to pay for off-grid generation, net-zero water and possibly a restricted supply chain, and the Army’s own argument shows it knows the margin is not unlimited. Whether the economics still work at scale is the question the two conditional awards will answer first.

Background

AI workloads have pushed demand for hyperscale data centers faster than utilities can connect them, and local opposition has become a real constraint, with Data Center Watch counting nearly $156 billion in projects delayed or canceled. The Pentagon holds large tracts of underused land at remote and secure installations, and a Trump executive order directed agencies to open non-excess federal land to data center development. The Army’s Enhanced Use Lease program, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers handling lease negotiations and environmental review, is the vehicle.

Carlyle is a global investment firm. CyrusOne is a data center operator jointly held by funds managed by KKR and BlackRock. Dugway Proving Ground in Utah is where the U.S. military conducts its primary chemical and biological weapons testing, and Fort Bliss in El Paso is home to the Army’s 1st Armored Division.

Sources

Source: Pentagon Plans AI Data Centers at Military Bases Across Multiple Branches (Military.com), on Army and Air Force plans to lease base land to commercial AI data center developers.

TL;DR · 30-second read

The Short Version

The United States military is letting private companies build giant computer centers for artificial intelligence on its bases. One in Texas will cover more than two square miles of Fort Bliss. Another is planned for a Utah testing range.

The catch is electricity. A local newsroom estimated the Texas site alone could use more power than all 460,000 homes and businesses on El Paso’s power system combined. Members of Congress from both parties now want the Pentagon to explain where that power and water will come from before building starts.

Lawmakers from both parties are trying to attach conditions to the Defense Department’s program of leasing military land to private companies for AI data centers, Politico reported on July 25, 2026. The Army has signed two conditional agreements: Carlyle Group will build on 1,384 acres at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, by 2027, and CyrusOne will build on 1,201 acres at Utah’s Dugway Proving Ground by 2029, according to an Army fact sheet. The Air Force has offered unused land on five installations.

Most of the proposals would require briefings, studies or planning rather than stopping construction. A provision from Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) requiring DOD to brief Congress on community impacts before construction was adopted in the House Defense spending bill, and a provision from Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) barring land deals for data centers with significant components made by U.S. adversaries is in the House-passed NDAA. Broader Democratic amendments, including one from Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), were rejected.

Executive Summary

The Pentagon’s plan to host commercial hyperscale data centers on military bases, set in motion by President Trump’s executive order last year directing the department to identify suitable sites, has moved from policy to signed deals. The Army describes its Fort Bliss and Dugway projects as coming at “no upfront cost to taxpayers” and including “comprehensive behind-the-meter power and water solutions”, meaning the sites would generate or source their own electricity and water rather than draw on the local utility.

That promise is now the center of the congressional debate. The measures gaining traction do not question whether the military can offer land; they ask the Defense Department to show, before construction, how these facilities will be powered and cooled without straining base infrastructure, local grids, or water supplies. For developers, that turns power and water planning from a project detail into a condition of doing business on federal land.

The House and Senate still have to reconcile their versions of the defense authorization and spending bills, possibly after the November elections, so the final terms remain open.

Land Is the Part the Military Can Give Away

The Army’s pitch to developers is built on land: large, secured, already federally controlled parcels offered without an upfront cost to taxpayers. Fort Bliss alone puts 1,384 acres on the table, and Dugway another 1,201. Even supporters in Congress frame the benefit in land terms. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said he favors base siting if it means fewer data centers on farmland that could otherwise grow crops.

But acreage is not what limits an AI data center. The binding constraint is electricity, and then water for cooling. El Paso Matters has estimated that the Fort Bliss facility could require more power than all of El Paso’s 460,000 electricity customers combined. Whether or not that estimate holds at full build-out, it sets the scale: a single campus of this kind can rival a mid-sized city’s demand. No amount of available land changes that arithmetic.

That is why the Army’s promise of “behind-the-meter” power carries so much weight. Behind-the-meter means generation on the customer’s side of the utility connection, so the data center would not simply pull from the local grid. If it works, the developer absorbs the cost and risk of building a power plant. If it falls short, the load lands on the regional utility and its ratepayers, which is precisely the outcome lawmakers from both parties say they want the Pentagon to rule out in advance.

Congress Is Asking for Proof, Not Stopping the Build-Out

The legislative scorecard shows where the consensus sits. Proposals to halt or ban construction failed: Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit AI data centers on federal lands was rejected, as was a Senate Democratic amendment to block leasing until DOD finalizes a data center strategy. Garamendi’s pre-deal certification requirement, covering energy, water, noise, light, security and supply chains, was voted down in House Armed Services.

What advanced is disclosure. Calvert’s provision, written into the House Defense spending bill, acknowledges that data centers “place significant strain on energy and water resources” and requires a pre-construction briefing on community impacts. A bipartisan Energy-Water package asks the Department of Energy to mitigate data centers’ effects on grid reliability and ratepayers. Even critics of Garamendi’s approach, such as Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.), suggested annual impact reports as an alternative. The live disagreement is not whether the Pentagon must account for power and water, but whether that accounting comes before a deal is signed or after.

DOD officials argue the department has already accounted for these impacts and warn that added requirements could slow the military in a competitive AI race. That concern is legitimate; so is lawmakers’ complaint, voiced by Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), that they have not received a briefing. Both claims could be tested quickly if the department published the power and water figures behind its agreements.

The Supply Chain Clause May Bite Harder Than the Studies

The provision with the most direct commercial consequence may be the one from Mills, now in the House-passed NDAA. It would bar DOD from providing land to data centers containing “significant components” manufactured by U.S. adversaries. An unnamed Army official told the Federal News Network that this would create an “unworkable standard” that could drive commercial partners away from Army land.

Unlike a briefing requirement, a component rule reaches into the equipment bill of materials: servers, networking gear, power and cooling systems. How much it bites depends on how “significant” is defined and enforced, and on whether it applies to behind-the-meter generation equipment as well as computing hardware. For developers weighing base sites against private land, a sourcing rule that is hard to certify could matter more to the economics than any study requirement.

Who Carries the Risk

For Carlyle and CyrusOne, the emerging terms shift risk onto the developer: finance the facility, supply its own power and water, and, if Mills’ language survives conference, document the origin of key components. For base commanders, the question is whether on-site generation and water use interact with installation readiness. For neighboring communities such as El Paso, the stakes are grid reliability and electricity bills, the same concern driving the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Ratepayer Protection Act, H.R. 9340.

The broader lesson for anyone siting AI infrastructure is that federal land does not bypass the power question. It relocates it, and adds a layer of public accountability that private sites do not face.

Background

AI data centers pack large numbers of power-hungry processors into a single site, and their electricity and cooling needs have become a flashpoint for utilities, regulators and communities across the United States. Hyperscale facilities, the largest class of data center built for cloud and AI workloads, can draw power on the scale of a small city and often use significant volumes of water for cooling.

The Defense Department entered this market after a presidential executive order last year directed it to identify military sites suitable for AI infrastructure. The Army’s model leases base land to private developers, who build and operate the facilities, and the Air Force has offered unused land at five installations. Carlyle Group is an investment firm; CyrusOne is a data center developer and operator.

Sources

Source: The Pentagon wants to build data centers. Congress would like a word. (Politico) — bipartisan congressional scrutiny of Defense Department land leases for AI data centers at Fort Bliss, Dugway and Air Force installations.