A coalition of more than 100 climate and social justice organizations has formally demanded that two major philanthropic funders abandon a private forum designed to shape the future of data center development.
The groups directed their pressure at the Rockefeller Foundation and Invest in Our Future, the two funders quietly backing the initiative, calling on both to pull their support entirely.
In a joint statement, the coalition argued the effort “is channeling attention towards false solutions that manage symptoms, while leaving the root inequities and staggering risks further entrenched.”
The forum was conceived as a multi-stakeholder convening, bringing together technology companies, green advocacy organizations, and philanthropists to negotiate voluntary guardrails around data center construction and energy use.
But the private nature of the discussions has sparked fierce resistance from environmental justice advocates who say they were excluded from meaningful participation in the process.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most prominent environmental law organizations in the country, has gone so far as to threaten withdrawal from the forum altogether.
Rania Masri, director of organizing and policy at the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, described her reaction upon being invited to join the proceedings as one of immediate alarm.
“The moment I was asked to participate, I realized it was a problem and I started organizing to expose the funders, to expose the others at the table, and to put pressure to dismantle this whole forum on so-called responsible data center development,” Masri said.
The Rockefeller Foundation, which controls a $6 billion endowment and ranks among the largest institutional funders of climate work in the United States, defended its involvement in a blog post published last week.
The foundation framed the data center initiative as consistent with its longstanding tradition of convening “unlikely partners” to work through difficult and politically sensitive policy questions.
It also acknowledged public unease, stating that concerns about data centers “are real and deserve to be heard,” though critics say that framing does not address the core objections about who holds power at the table.
Progressive groups have drawn a direct link between the forum and a separate permitting bill, arguing both measures would erode existing protections for vulnerable communities and sensitive environmental resources.
The backlash represents a significant test for well-funded climate philanthropy, raising uncomfortable questions about whether private convenings can legitimately set policy boundaries for an industry as consequential as artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Data centers have become a flashpoint in energy and land-use debates across the country, as surging demand for computing power strains electricity grids and draws scrutiny from communities bearing the brunt of new industrial development.
Whether the Rockefeller Foundation and Invest in Our Future will heed the coalition’s demands or press forward with a restructured version of the forum remains an open question, but the breadth of opposition suggests the current model has little room to survive intact.
