Ben Sheidler | Principal, Cornerstone Public Affairs
For years, leaders across the political spectrum have said America needs to build things again.
Bring manufacturing home. Strengthen domestic supply chains. Produce more energy. Build new infrastructure. Create jobs and investment. And, increasingly, build what the United States needs to lead in artificial intelligence.
Generally, Americans support these goals. The harder question is what happens when achieving them requires building something in a specific community.
Last year, I explored this tension in Made in America, But Not in My Backyard. Since then, it has become more pronounced.
Manufacturing facilities, energy projects, transmission lines, housing, and other infrastructure still face organized local opposition. Data centers are perhaps the most visible example today, as communities across the country determine where and how to develop them.
It raises a larger question: Does America really want to build things again?
We think the answer is yes. But communities and their citizens want a greater say in what gets built, where and how it affects them.
After years of working on projects across the country, we believe understanding that shift is critical to getting things built.
Listen to What People Are Telling Us
Across our work at Cornerstone advising clients on major development projects, we have seen a familiar pattern.
Residents raise concerns about water. The project responds with data showing the impact will be minimal. The conversation moves to power. Then traffic. Noise. Property values.
Each concern deserves to be addressed on its merits. But when addressing one concern simply leads to another, it is worth asking what else may be driving the opposition.
We think part of the answer lies in the populist mood reshaping American politics.
That mood crosses traditional political lines. Some voices within the MAGA base and activists on the populist left come from very different ideological traditions but can share a distrust of established institutions and centers of power.
Some voters question who really benefits from economic growth and whether consequential decisions affecting their communities are being made elsewhere. Rapid technological change, particularly around AI, can amplify that unease.
Those sentiments do not fit neatly into traditional partisan categories. Neither does opposition to development.
Data centers illustrate this point. A recent Marquette Law School Poll found that 78% of Wisconsin voters surveyed said the costs outweigh the benefits, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. National polling from Public First and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that views of data centers become less favorable when people are told they will be used to train AI models.
Water, power, noise, land use, and other impacts matter. But so do the questions underneath people’s opposition: Why is this happening here? Who benefits? And how much say do people like me really have?
A Tale of Two Projects
One of our own clients’ experiences has made us think differently about this.
We were supporting a life sciences company seeking approval to build a large facility. A proposal to build a data center project was also before local officials that night.
The meeting drew a large crowd, with many residents there to oppose the data center. We worried that skepticism might carry over to our project.
It didn’t.
As company representatives presented, the room’s tenor shifted. They explained in straightforward terms who they were, what they planned to build, and why they wanted to invest in the community.
There were several reasons the projects may have been received differently. The site was already understood to be intended for significant development, and local leaders had spent years making clear they wanted life sciences investment. Our client’s proposal fit that vision.
We also deliberately shared the company’s identity and key project details earlier than required, giving residents more time to understand the company and investment.
Later, a disagreement between the city and county over the project’s economic benefits put the investment at risk. Residents responded by advocating for the project and urging elected officials to find a way forward.
One experience doesn’t provide a universal formula for successful projects. But it demonstrates something important: American communities can distinguish between projects. They are not simply saying “no” to growth.
Rethinking How We Build
The lesson is not that America no longer wants to build. The environment in which we build has changed.
Communities and local leaders can do more to establish where significant development belongs and what kinds of investment they want. Companies can engage authentically, provide information earlier when possible, and deliver on their commitments.
None of this guarantees support. But it can create a stronger foundation for trust.
If the broader populist mood is telling us anything, it’s that trust and a sense of control matter. People want to know their voices are heard and that decision-makers are listening.
America has ambitious economic and technological goals. Achieving them will require significant investment in real places where people live.
The challenge is giving people greater confidence in where their communities are headed. They need to understand why a project belongs there and what it will mean for those who already call that place home.
If we can do that, we may find Americans aren’t as opposed to building things as the headlines sometimes suggest.
Want to be first to receive news from The Briefing Room? Subscribe to the e-newsletter here. To learn more about Cornerstone’s Public Affairs and Strategic Communications offerings, please click here.