Geopolitical competition with China has forced the U.S. government to treat AI development as a national security priority, similar to the Manhattan Project. This means the massive AI CapEx buildout will be implicitly backstopped to prevent an economic downturn, effectively turning the sector into a regulated utility.
Related Insights
A recent Harvard study reveals the staggering scale of the AI infrastructure build-out, concluding that if data center investments were removed, current U.S. economic growth would effectively be zero. This highlights that the AI boom is not just a sector-specific trend but a primary driver of macroeconomic activity in the United States.
OpenAI's CFO hinted at needing government guarantees for its massive data center build-out, sparking fears of an AI bubble and a "too big to fail" scenario. This reveals the immense financial risk and growing economic dependence the U.S. is developing on a few key AI labs.
The AI industry and the US government both require trillions in funding. This creates a paradox: the more successful AI becomes, the more it erodes the white-collar tax base by automating jobs, forcing the Treasury to borrow even more and intensifying the competition for scarce capital.
Major tech companies view the AI race as a life-or-death struggle. This 'existential crisis' mindset explains their willingness to spend astronomical sums on infrastructure, prioritizing survival over short-term profitability. Their spending is a defensive moat-building exercise, not just a rational pursuit of new revenue.
Before AI delivers long-term deflationary productivity, it requires a massive, inflationary build-out of physical infrastructure. This makes sectors like utilities, pipelines, and energy infrastructure a timely hedge against inflation and a diversifier away from concentrated tech bets.
Unlike the dot-com bubble's finite need for fiber optic cables, the demand for AI is infinite because it's about solving an endless stream of problems. This suggests the current infrastructure spending cycle is fundamentally different and more sustainable than previous tech booms.
The U.S. has the same 1.2 terawatts of power capacity it had in 1985. This stagnation now poses a national security risk, as the country must double its capacity to support AI data centers and reshoring manufacturing. The Department of Energy views solving this as a "Manhattan Project 2.0" level imperative.
The massive capital rush into AI infrastructure mirrors past tech cycles where excess capacity was built, leading to unprofitable projects. While large tech firms can absorb losses, the standalone projects and their supplier ecosystems (power, materials) are at risk if anticipated demand doesn't materialize.
The massive capital expenditure on AI infrastructure is not just a private sector trend; it's framed as an existential national security race against China's superior electricity generation capacity. This government backing makes it difficult to bet against and suggests the spending cycle is still in its early stages.
The current market boom, largely driven by AI enthusiasm, provides critical political cover for the Trump administration. An AI market downturn would severely weaken his political standing. This creates an incentive for the administration to take extraordinary measures, like using government funds to backstop private AI companies, to prevent a collapse.
