Concerns About Federal Land Use and Agricultural Support

There’s a growing sentiment that America needs more farmers and ranchers instead of tech-driven infrastructure like data centers and AI systems. The federal government seems to be leaning towards prioritizing AI, granting large areas of public land to major tech companies, all while family farms and ranches fade away and food prices continue to rise.

Conservatives have long expressed that federal land ownership, particularly in the Western states, could jeopardize both freedom and economic wellbeing. While the Trump administration recognizes this issue, the response of accelerating AI infrastructure on government-owned land might not be the right approach.

Many believe if there’s to be a significant national project—akin to the Manhattan Project—it should focus on ensuring food security, rather than advancing AI technology.

Instead of turning over control to states or private citizens, the government is backing an industry that uses substantial resources without delivering real benefits to everyday Americans. Recent proposals, including those from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum aimed at creating “15-minute cities” and “affordable housing,” only add to the skepticism.

In July, an executive order was signed to speed up the federal approval process for data center development as part of an AI plan. This included streamlining permits, offering financial incentives, and allowing AI-related projects on federal lands, including military sites. Initially, four locations were identified for this type of development, and last month, five more military bases were added to the list for leasing land to private developers.

Although placing AI infrastructure on military land may seem like a better option than disrupting residential or agricultural areas, it raises questions about whether this uses public land effectively. Moreover, could this arrangement lead to companies becoming too powerful, similar to how banks operated before the 2008 crisis?

President Trump has pointed out the pressing issue of affordable meat supplies. If any sector deserves federal backing, surely it should be the independent farmers and ranchers of America. However, as land is cleared for tech giants, small farms risk vanishing. Over the last five years, about 141,000 family farms and 150,000 cattle operations have disappeared, with national cattle herds at their lowest since 1951. Since 1982, over half a million farms have been lost in the U.S.

Multiple factors, including rising costs, droughts, and inflation, are squeezing family farms, rendering them unable to compete with larger corporations. Adding to this, federal land policies limit grazing rights and water access for ranchers. If the government is looking to sell or lease public land, wouldn’t it make more sense to support ranchers in need of resources?

Further complicating the landscape are conservation programs which, under recent legislations, have restricted millions of acres of land for conservation purposes. In some instances, wealthy owners have exploited these programs by temporarily qualifying land for agriculture only to revert it for government payments.

These lands could support numerous livestock or produce significant agricultural output, yet they remain idle, leading to artificial shortages and increased feed prices. Rapid inflation has substantially raised hay prices, further burdening ranchers who operate on slim margins.

If a new push is needed, it should focus on securing food supplies rather than on AI development. There’s an urgent need to repurpose federal land and inactive conservation areas for productive agricultural use. Rather than backing a speculative tech sector, support should be directed toward helping ranchers expand their operations and lower food costs.

The financial structures of AI companies also raise concerns. The costs associated with platforms like OpenAI are unsustainable, suggesting a potential spiral towards another taxpayer-funded bailout. By allowing these corporations privileged access to public resources, there’s a risk of establishing new untouchable corporate entities similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Ultimately, AI isn’t going to feed the nation. The fundamental supply chains remain broken, and food prices are unlikely to drop meaningfully. Until these industries can contribute to tangible food supplies, federal lands must fulfill their intended purpose: supporting the livelihoods of those who work the land.