Maine’s AI Data Center Ban: Governor Mills Faces the Mother of All Dilemmas—$550M, a Senate Bid, and the Wrath of the Data Gnomes

Maine Governor Janet Mills, currently neck-deep in a Senate primary that’s less “horse race” and more “cage match,” is about to star in her own political thriller: To Sign or Not to Sign: The AI Data Center Edition. The plot twist? She’s holding a bill that could ban AI data centers—the first such move in U.S. history—and the clock’s ticking. Will she sign it? Veto it? Or just dramatically rip it in half like a reality TV villain? The nation watches, popcorn in hand.

Earlier this week, Maine’s legislature pulled off a legislative Hail Mary by passing the country’s first temporary moratorium on large-scale AI data centers. We’re talking a pause lasting over a year, plus the creation of a town-level council to vet future projects—because apparently, even robots need a chaperone when they move to rural Maine. If this becomes law, it’ll be less “Silicon Valley” and more “Silent Valley.”

AI data centers, those hulking monuments to computational overkill, have been stirring up suburban drama faster than a TikTok influencer at a HOA meeting. Noise complaints? Check. Skyrocketing energy bills? Double check. Local infrastructure groaning under the weight of AI’s thirst for power? Triple check. Yet despite the chaos, no state has actually hit the brakes—until now. Maine just raised the yellow flag, and the rest of the country is wondering if this is genius or a glitch.

Maine isn’t exactly AI’s promised land—yet. But in a state where people still debate whether a lobster roll should have mayo (it shouldn’t), any massive industrial project is bound to ruffle some flannel shirts. The backlash was loud enough, and oddly bipartisan, to send the moratorium sailing through both legislative chambers like a stealthy meme coin that somehow got listed on Coinbase.

Now, Governor Mills gets to play the final boss. Last week, she told reporters she wanted a special carve-out for a proposed $550 million data center in Jay—a town so small, its idea of nightlife is a raccoon knocking over a trash can. “The people of Jay need those jobs,” she said, “with appropriate guardrails on water, electricity, and local generation.” Translation: “We want the bag, but not the hangover.”

That exemption never made it into the final bill. So now Mills is stuck between a rock, a hard place, and a $550 million economic stimulus package wrapped in server racks. Sign the ban and risk alienating a town desperate for jobs. Veto it, and she’ll face the fury of environmentalists, local activists, and possibly an angry moose. It’s like choosing between two bad hard forks.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco—where the only thing louder than the foghorns is the sound of tech bros panicking—roughly 200 protesters marched past the offices of Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI, demanding a conditional pause on ever-more-powerful AI. Organized by Stop the AI Race founder Michael Trazzi, the protest drew researchers, academics, and members of groups like the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, PauseAI, and QuitGPT—because apparently, even AI skeptics can’t resist a good acronym.

Mills’ decision just got juicier. She’s locked in a brutal Senate primary against Graham Platner, a Democratic upstart who grows oysters by day and political memes by night. Despite being the state’s top official, Mills is now trailing in the polls by a margin wide enough to fit an entire data center. Platner, running to her left, smells blood—and this AI vote could either save her campaign or turn it into a cautionary tale.

Picking a side on AI right now is like trying to short a meme coin before the pump—high risk, higher drama. With her Senate race hitting peak intensity, Mills probably hoped to avoid this exact hot potato. But here we are. The AI reckoning has come to Maine, and it’s wearing a flannel onesie.

Lurking in the shadows? AI-focused super PACs—yes, those are now a thing—dumping millions into national races like digital warlords funding rival factions. These groups won’t forget how Mills votes. Whether she sides with the data centers or the deer, someone’s going to get very angry—and very well-funded.

Mills’ team hasn’t responded to Decrypt’s request for comment. Either they’re busy, or they’re waiting for an AI to draft the perfect press release. (Spoiler: it won’t.)

In tech news that feels like sci-fi written by a caffeinated intern, Google DeepMind dropped Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6—an AI model that helps robots understand space, plan tasks, and know when they’ve succeeded (a feature some humans still lack). It’s a leap forward in embodied reasoning, meaning robots might soon do actual work instead of just falling over in viral videos.

Meanwhile, Anthropic quietly rolled out identity verification for Claude, asking certain users for a government-issued ID and a live selfie—because nothing says “trust” like proving you’re not a bot while using an AI. Competitors aren’t doing this (yet), but hey, maybe your future AI therapist just wants to make sure you’re really human before diagnosing your existential dread.

And in Hollywood, where reality has long been optional, an upcoming thriller titled Bitcoin: Killing Satoshi will star crypto’s OG asset front and center. Directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity—fitting) and boasting a cast including Gal Gadot, Casey Affleck, Isla Fisher, and Pete Davidson (because why not?), the $70 million film leans hard into AI tools. The plot? A globe-spanning hunt for Bitcoin’s mysterious creator. The