On 4 November, Time journalists Andrew R. Chow and Harry Booth described how AI featured in the previous day’s US midterm elections. They wrote that the accelerationists, the wing pushing for AI development without restrictions, had a rough night.

In an NBC exit poll, 56 per cent of voters considered AI and data centres a crucial or major factor in deciding their vote for Congress, Time reported. Democrats spent more than $100 million on TV adverts portraying Republicans as allies of tech giants and data centres. Many of these races ended in clear Democratic wins.

Opposition to data centres crossed party lines

In Ohio, Senator-elect Sherrod Brown used his adverts to call his opponent Husted the face of Ohio’s data centres, and won by five percentage points.

Americans would rather live near a prison, a methadone clinic or a nuclear power plant than near an AI data centre, according to a survey by the progressive research firm Blue Rose Research. Ali Mortell, the firm’s research director, said concern about AI’s existential risks has grown, but the concrete local harms of data centres, such as rising electricity bills, noise and environmental concerns, weighed far more heavily with voters.

Opposition to data centres can also turn against Democrats. In Wisconsin, Republican Tom Tiffany mocked his opponent as ‘Data Center David Crowley’. Crowley toughened his stance in October and won. Views have turned more negative across the board, Mortell said.

Neither camp’s money was decisive

The super PAC Leading the Future was set up in August 2025 with more than $100 million in funding to support pro-AI candidates. Distrust of the industry turned the money into a liability: in a poll cited by Time, three in four likely voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if they heard the candidate had taken support from an AI industry super PAC. As the general election approached, Leading the Future left most of its money unspent.

Elon Musk was the biggest donor of the election cycle, with $446 million. Of that, $168 million effectively went towards backing Ken Paxton in Texas. Paxton nevertheless clearly lost to James Talarico, who has called for an end to tax breaks for technology companies.

Safety PACs spent considerably more than Leading the Future and its affiliated PACs. Anthropic gave more than $40 million to Public First Action, which pushes for stronger safeguards, but the money could not be used for electioneering. Anthropic employees separately donated $5 million for campaigning. Winners backed by the safety camp included Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Manny Rutinel in Colorado.

Even so, Time wrote, neither camp’s money was decisive. The biggest spending battle between AI PACs was fought in a New York congressional primary: the safety camp spent $21.3 million supporting Alex Bores and the accelerationists $8.2 million opposing him. Bores lost. But the winner, Micah Lasher, had co-sponsored the same AI safety law that made Bores an industry target.

No broad federal regulation expected soon

Time does not expect broad federal AI regulation soon. Although Democrats control both chambers, they would need broad Republican support to override a presidential veto. Congress can, however, call company executives to testify and undo Republican efforts to block state AI laws.