5 questions for the Data Center Coalition's Josh Levi

Presented by
Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. This week I spoke with Josh Levi, president of the Data Center Coalition, the primary trade group for one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States. Levi, a former vice president of the Northern Virginia Technology Council, discussed why he thinks government needs to do more to boost U.S. energy generation and capacity, the influence of science historian James Burke's 'Connections,' and the astonishing rate of growth and spending in his own industry. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows:
What's one underrated big idea?
How digital infrastructure has become foundational for everything we do. Data is the lifeblood of our daily lives and the 21st-century economy. All the convenience we often associate with the cloud, whether it's streaming a movie, participating in a Zoom call, having a telehealth appointment with your doctor, or participating in online learning is facilitated by data transferred and stored in physical locations, the servers located in data centers.
In fact, the average American household now has 21 connected devices. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit my family has over 50. The world is expected to generate as much data in the next five years as it did over the previous 10, especially as an additional 2 billion people start connecting to the internet. We're seeing a massive increase in demand for the data that fuels economic growth. Ninety-five percent of Fortune 500 companies now leverage cloud-based tools and apps in their daily operations, and business sectors of all types, like manufacturing, healthcare, cybersecurity and finance, among many others rely on cloud-based data processing. With the increasing deployment of AI applications, these trends will continue and accelerate.
What's a technology that you think is overhyped?
I think there's too much attention paid to technologies potentially being overhyped, to the extent that we may instead risk underhyping the potential for significant advancements. I've been proven wrong multiple times in the past by technologies I thought were overhyped. Some that were literally science fiction when I was growing up are now accepted facets of our daily lives.
I remember reading an article in the late 1990s that introduced the concept of a single device that would replace your watch, phone, electronic communications, beeper, camera, and even your wallet. This was in the flip-phone era, and the idea of using a phone for payments and credentials was hard to fathom. By being too cautious or moving too slowly, we may miss the tremendous positive upside of new technologies rather than leaning in to help support their creation and adoption.
What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't?
Access to reliable electricity has become the pacing challenge to building out America's digital infrastructure. After 20 years of relatively flat electricity load growth, today nearly all new investment and growth throughout the 21st century economy fundamentally relies on the availability of power.
Previously, data center companies have been able to construct and power facilities in 18 to 24 months. Now in some markets, power will not be available to support major projects for four to seven years or longer. An overly cautious view bears risks for our entire economy. The federal government has an important leadership role to play, and while efforts are underway, more can be done and speed is important. Load forecasting processes should be standardized and improved to build greater confidence and right-size investments. Permitting reform for needed transmission investments and projects should be expedited. New grid configurations, including co-located load arrangements, should be permissible with reasonable parameters in place. Energy supply chains, particularly for transformers, breakers and turbines, should be prioritized and secured.
The Trump administration recognizes the essential role of data centers and has been a strong leader in helping to accelerate additional investments that support our national security and economic competitiveness today and into the future. The data center industry will continue engaging with the White House, Congress, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and various agencies to help inform how the federal government can ensure we have the power needed to meet this moment.
What book most shaped your conception of the future?
I read a book in middle school by James Burke called 'Connections,' which was a companion to a related documentary series. 'Connections' significantly influenced how I think about the future and the present. In the book, Burke identifies a series of inventions that are important in our modern lives, such as airplanes, TVs and the industrial production line. He then looks back at previous technologies, inventions and discoveries over centuries that influenced and contributed to the development of that modern-day technology. These connections and chains of events were not immediately obvious, and Burke's skill is in identifying and weaving them together.
'Connections' provided an extraordinary view of everything that had to come together to inform many of our modern technologies. It expanded my awareness of all the innovations we know today and the certainty I have that many will come together in the future to create extraordinary new innovations we cannot anticipate. 'Connections' influenced my decision to focus my career in the technology industry.
What has surprised you the most this year?
The size and scale of investments made by data center companies in continuing to build out digital infrastructure. How quickly these announcements and investments have grown from hundreds of millions of dollars, to billions of dollars, to more than $100 billion in some cases, has been extraordinary. Meanwhile, the number of jobs and economic opportunities associated with those investments has continued to increase; the industry now supports 4.7 million jobs and $727 billion in annual GDP as of 2023. Companies are investing to meet this unprecedented moment and responding to the growing demand signals for more data and digital infrastructure across all facets of our society and economy.
grok-splaining
xAI offered a measured explanation for its chatbot Grok's sudden obsession with 'white genocide.'
In a post on X Thursday evening, the company said 'an unauthorized modification was made to the Grok response bot's prompt on X … This change, which directed Grok to provide a specific response on a political topic, violated xAI's internal policies and core values.' The message did not disclose who made the change.
xAI continued to say, 'We have conducted a thorough investigation and are implementing measures to enhance Grok's transparency and reliability.' The company outlined steps it's taking to increase transparency for Grok's output, including publishing system prompts on GitHub, adding 'additional checks and measures to ensure that xAI employees can't modify the prompt without review,' and starting a '24/7 monitoring team' to catch future incidents.
openai tries to clear the air
OpenAI is trying to convince California's attorney general that it's complying with the legal obligations of being a nonprofit.
POLITICO's Christine Mui reported for Pro subscribers today on a letter from the company to California AG Rob Bonta, pushing back on criticism from figures like Elon Musk and other nonprofits that OpenAI is not meeting its requirements as a nonprofit.
Critics accuse OpenAI of breaching its charitable trust by abandoning its original nonprofit mission and allowing its assets to be diverted for private gain.
'Despite (and likely because) of OpenAI's achievements, its most powerful detractors — many of whom, including Elon Musk, stand to massively profit if OpenAI falters — have sponsored a false narrative about OpenAI to advance their own commercial interests,' wrote two lawyers hired by OpenAI, Gov. Gavin Newsom's former chief of staff Ann O'Leary and William Savitt.
Bonta has been investigating OpenAI's compliance as a nonprofit since 2024. Amid the company's abortive attempt to put its for-profit portion in control of the nonprofit last month, nonprofits, labor groups and philanthropists signed a letter asking Bonta to 'transfer OpenAI's charitable assets to a truly independent nonprofit or nonprofits.'
ai in albania
European Union leaders visiting Albania today received a deeply weird AI-powered welcome.
POLITICO's Clea Calcutt reported from the opening ceremony of the European Political Community in Tirana, where EU leaders were greeted by a short film showing each of them … as an AI-generated baby, saying 'Welcome to Albania' in their native language.
Clea writes that the video could have been dreamt up by Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, a former painter in France with a reputation for playful quirkiness. (He was reelected by a wide margin this week.)
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni laughed heartily at the strange welcome, while Clea writes that Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen smiled incredulously. Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was 'stony,' but he 'let a slight smile slip when his version came up, a small baby with a mustache.'
post of the day
THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS
Stay in touch with the whole team: Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com).

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Insider

an hour ago

• Business Insider

Women are getting wealthier — and they don't invest the same way as men

Women are becoming richer, and they're changing the face of wealth. According to a report by McKinsey published last month, women control about a third of all retail financial assets in the US and the European Union. By 2030, that proportion is expected to rise to between 40% to 45%, wrote Cristina Catania, global co-convener and European lead for the risk and resilience practice, and Jill Zucker, senior partner and co-leader of McKinsey's global growth transformation service line. The report is based on a survey of about 13,000 American and European investors, nearly half of whom were female financial decision makers. It found that between 2018 and 2023, global wealth rose by 43%, but jumped by 51% for women. Women's expanding control of assets is being driven by a combination of factors, including a continuing decline in marriage rates, the ongoing boost in women's average earnings, demographic trends like longer life expectancies, and a broad shift in attitudes about women managing their own finances. Risk doesn't equal reward As women become wealthier through investing, it's becoming clearer that they don't approach it the same way as men. "Women are much more risk-aware," Anna-Sophie Hartvigsen, cofounder of financial education and investment platform Female Invest, told Business Insider. "I would like to call it much more realistic in their own ability to invest." She said women are less likely than men to invest emotionally. "On average, men trade a lot more often than women because they believe they can beat the market or they read something in the news, and they get pumped up or afraid, and then they invest based on that," Hartvigsen said. Female investors, in her view, tend to be more calm, more realistic, and better at assessing risk. However, Katie Geery, an advisor at Rise Private Wealth Management, says being more cautious can also hold women back by leading them to miss out on opportunities to build wealth. "It is important to work with a trusted financial advisor who understands your risk tolerance and can walk you through making well-educated investment decisions based on your long-term goals," she told BI. Returns aren't everything The aims of investing also sometimes differ between men and women. "Women prefer to invest toward achieving specific goals rather than chasing the highest returns," said Avanti Shetye, financial planner at Wealthwyzr. Geery said female investors tend to be more focused on philanthropy and gifting. They often consider their values when buying stock and want their purchases to help make a better impact on the world. "Women often seek financial advisors who are empathetic and take the time to get to know them on a more personal level to gain a deeper understanding of their goals and values," she said. On Female Invest, Hartvigsen said the principles its members care about the most include climate, especially a firm's carbon footprint, and diversity in leadership, in terms of a board having a good gender balance. Start investing early For Shetye, it's important to start investing early. "Women tend to be primary caregivers for children or aging parents and often take unpaid time off," she said. "Not only that, women statistically live longer than men, which implies that women would need to invest as much as they can as early as possible so that their portfolios last them through retirement." Hartvigsen said long-term financial planning is vital: "When you do that, it doesn't matter what happens today." Both agree that this plan should be grounded in expert advice. "Working with a financial planner whose planning process is rooted in financial education can help provide comfort and security to stay consistent even in the roughest of markets," Shetye said. But she also believes that practice is more important than perfection. "You are never going to know everything there is to know about investing," Shetye said. "The key is consistency, and time will do the heavy lifting." Hartvigsen advises her clients to invest monthly on the same day and to diversify their investments. "If you do that, historically, it has been near impossible not to make money in the long run."

Los Angeles Times

an hour ago

• Los Angeles Times

How Iran could retaliate after the U.S. strikes on its nuclear program

DUBAI — Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the United States from attacking it. By entering Israel's war, the U.S. may have removed the last rationale for holding them in reserve. That could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies, or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon with what remains of Iran's disputed program after American strikes on three key sites. A decision to retaliate against the U.S. and its regional allies would give Iran a far larger target bank and one that is much closer than Israel, allowing it to potentially use its missiles and drones to greater effect. The U.S. and Israel have far superior capabilities, but those haven't always proved decisive in America's recent history of military interventions in the region. Ever since Israel started the war with a surprise bombardment of Iran's military and nuclear sites June 13, Iranian officials from the supreme leader on down have warned the U.S. to stay out, saying that direct American involvement would have dire consequences for the entire region. It should soon be clear whether those were merely threats or a grim forecast. Here's a look at what Iran's next move might be. The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which some 20% of all oil traded globally passes, and at its narrowest point it is just 21 miles wide. Any disruption there could send oil prices soaring worldwide and hit American pocketbooks. Iran boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines that could potentially make the strait impassable, at least for a time. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. The U.S., with its 5th Fleet stationed in nearby Bahrain, has long pledged to uphold freedom of navigation in the strait and would respond with far superior forces. But even a relatively brief battle could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops stationed in the region, including at permanent bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — Arab Gulf countries just across the Persian Gulf from Iran — and much closer than Israel. Those bases have the same kinds of sophisticated air defenses as Israel's, but would have much less warning time before waves of missiles or swarms of armed drones. And even Israel, which is several hundred miles farther away, has been unable to stop all of the incoming fire. Iran could also choose to attack key oil and gas facilities in those countries with the goal of exacting a higher price for U.S. involvement in the war. A drone attack on two major oil sites in Saudi Arabia in 2019 — claimed by the Houthis but widely blamed on Iran — briefly cut the kingdom's oil production in half. Iran's so-called 'Axis of Resistance' — a network of militant groups across the Middle East — is a shadow of what it was before the war ignited by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel out of the Gaza Strip, but it still has some formidable capabilities. Israel's 20-month war in Gaza has severely diminished the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups, and Israel decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah last fall, killing most of its top leadership and devastating much of southern Lebanon, making its involvement unlikely. But Iran could still call on the Houthis, who had threatened to resume their attacks in the Red Sea if the U.S. entered the war, and allied militias in Iraq. Both have drone and missile capabilities that would allow them to target the United States and its allies. Iran could also seek to respond through militant attacks farther afield, as it is widely accused of doing in the 1990s with an attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina that was blamed on Tehran and Hezbollah. It could be days or weeks before the full impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites is known. But experts have long warned that even joint U.S. and Israeli strikes would only delay Iran's ability to develop a weapon, not eliminate it. That's because Iran has dispersed its program across the country to several sites, including hardened, underground facilities. Iran would probably struggle to repair or reconstitute its nuclear program while Israeli and U.S. warplanes are circling overhead. But it could still decide to fully end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon three years later, but it had the freedom to develop its program without punishing airstrikes. Iran contends that its program is peaceful, though it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA assess Iran hasn't had an organized military nuclear program since 2003. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons. Krauss and Gambrell write for the Associated Press.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation

President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.