No Data Center NDAs Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 20, 2026
Bottom line
The "No Data Center NDAs Act" aims to increase transparency around data center development by preventing Members of Congress from being bound by confidentiality agreements when reviewing related information, thereby enhancing public oversight.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Members of Congress from signing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with state or local governments or private entities as a condition for receiving information about data center planning or development. This includes details on planned investments, location, construction designs, and resource consumption like water or energy. The bill also forbids the use of federal funds to implement or enforce such NDAs and directs the House and Senate Ethics Committees to promulgate necessary regulations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances transparency and accountability by ensuring Members of Congress have unfettered access to information regarding data center projects, which often involve significant public resources and environmental impacts. They contend that preventing NDAs allows elected officials to fully inform their constituents and make decisions based on complete knowledge, free from corporate or local government secrecy, promoting good governance and preventing potential conflicts of interest.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such a prohibition could hinder sensitive negotiations or the sharing of proprietary business information, potentially slowing down or deterring data center development in certain areas. They might contend that some information, especially related to private investments or competitive designs, legitimately requires confidentiality to protect business interests and foster innovation, and that forcing disclosure could put companies at a disadvantage or expose them to undue public scrutiny before projects are finalized.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Nondisclosure Agreements Related to Data Centers
This section explicitly forbids any Member of Congress from entering into a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with any state or local government unit or private company. This prohibition applies when the NDA is a condition for receiving information about the planning or development of a data center, including details on investments, location, construction designs, or water and energy usage. The intent is to ensure Members of Congress have unrestricted access to critical information about these projects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this prohibition is crucial for ensuring public oversight of significant infrastructure projects like data centers. They contend that data centers often have substantial environmental footprints (e.g., energy and water consumption) and receive considerable public incentives, making transparency essential for informed decision-making by elected officials and their constituents.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that requiring full disclosure from Members of Congress could deter private investment in data centers, as companies may be unwilling to share proprietary information or strategic plans if they know it will not be kept confidential. They might also suggest that some information, particularly early-stage planning or competitive bids, legitimately requires confidentiality to protect business interests.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the public's right to information and congressional oversight with the potential for private entities to seek confidentiality for competitive or strategic reasons. It prioritizes transparency for elected officials over the desire for secrecy in certain aspects of private development.
This subsection prohibits the use of any federal funds (appropriated or otherwise made available from the U.S. Treasury) to implement or enforce any nondisclosure agreement that is prohibited under subsection (a).
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure the enforceability of the primary prohibition by cutting off funding for any attempts to circumvent it. It's a necessary enforcement mechanism rather than an evasive tactic.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is essential to prevent federal resources from inadvertently or deliberately supporting practices that the bill aims to prohibit. It closes a potential loophole for enforcement.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such enforcement mechanisms, as they directly support the primary intent of the bill.
Estimated impact: Prevents federal financial support for any prohibited NDA enforcement, ensuring the bill's intent is not undermined by federal funding.
This subsection mandates that the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate each promulgate regulations necessary and appropriate to carry out the prohibition under this section.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for delegating rule-making authority to the appropriate bodies within Congress to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of new ethical guidelines.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that the prohibition is properly integrated into congressional ethics rules and that clear guidelines are established for Members. It leverages the expertise of the ethics committees.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against delegating rule-making authority to ethics committees for internal congressional conduct.
Estimated impact: Ensures the practical implementation and enforcement of the NDA prohibition within the House and Senate.
Defines "data center" by referencing section 453(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17112(a)).
Section 2(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing federal law. It's efficient but requires external lookup.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing an existing definition provides clarity and consistency, avoiding ambiguity and ensuring the bill's scope aligns with established federal understanding of data centers, particularly concerning energy efficiency.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions can make a bill less self-contained and harder for the average reader to fully comprehend without additional research. However, this is a minor point for a technical definition.
Estimated impact: Ensures a precise and consistent application of the term "data center" across federal policy.