On September 30, 2026 House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin sent letters to Amazon, Google, Meta and Oracle demanding records of non-disclosure agreements signed with federal, state or local officials on data-center projects since 2021, plus projections of electricity and water use. The letters follow the September 24 introduction of the bipartisan No Secrets for Data Centers Act. Amazon has said it no longer uses NDAs with government partners for data-center projects. Site-selection, government-affairs and board teams should treat public-official confidentiality language as a live disclosure risk.
The congressional request is not a statute and not a subpoena β but it puts the confidentiality architecture around U.S. AI data-center deals on a public docket one week after a bipartisan bill sought to void those same NDAs.
This briefing is not legal or lobbying advice. Responses to congressional letters should be coordinated with counsel.
- What changed? Raskin asked four hyperscalers for NDAs with public officials and for power and water projections on U.S. data centers.
- When? Letters dated and announced September 30, 2026. Companion bill introduced September 24.
- Who is affected? Amazon, Google, Meta, Oracle; co-location tenants; utilities; local economic-development boards.
- What to do this week? Inventory every public-official NDA tied to a data-center or incentive package.
What did the September 30 letters ask for?
The House Judiciary Democrats press release states that Ranking Member Raskin launched an inquiry into Amazon, Google, Meta and Oracle over NDAs that, in his description, prevent local officials from discussing data-center projects with constituents. The letters ask why officials are required to sign those agreements and request production of NDAs signed with government officials since 2021, along with projections for electricity and water use at U.S. sites. The release cites examples including Amazonβs use of broadly defined proprietary language and shell companies, comments about San Jose secrecy agreements involving Google, and a Louisiana agreement involving a Meta subsidiary connected to a large campus.
Secondary reporting said Amazon stated it no longer uses NDAs with government partners for data-center projects. Google, Meta and Oracle were described as not immediately responding in first-day accounts.
How does the September 24 bill change the backdrop?
On September 24 Representatives Greg Landsman, Tom Barrett and Jamie Raskin introduced the No Secrets for Data Centers Act. Sponsor materials say the bill would void NDAs signed by government officials that hide details of a data-center project and would restrict subsidies conditioned on keeping those details confidential, with a carve-out for ordinary trade secrets. A letter is not a law. A bipartisan bill plus a ranking-member document request still signals that incentive packages negotiated in silence are now a midterm-season issue.
Why should boards care if they are not the four addressees?
Many operators sit one layer down: a manufacturer taking power from a new park, a SaaS company signing a long-term colo contract, or a utility affiliate that co-signed an incentive ordinance. If the public official who approved a rate or tax abatement cannot answer a constituent question about megawatts or water, that silence now has House letterhead attached. Boards that approved confidential economic-development packages should know which clauses would break if the Landsman-Barrett-Raskin text moved, and which clauses are ordinary trade-secret protection.
What should governance teams do this week?
Build a one-page inventory: counterparty, date, whether the signer is a public official, what the NDA covers, and duration. Separate true technical trade secrets from terms that stop an elected official from describing a tax break. Government-affairs should decide, with counsel, whether a voluntary transparency note on load range, water source and public subsidy total reduces the chance of becoming the next named example.
Audit committees that already review climate and water risk should add public-official confidentiality on AI infrastructure to the same dashboard. The political risk is local utility bills and water use, not model weights.
What to watch next?
Whether the four companies produce documents, whether other members co-sign, and whether the No Secrets bill gets a hearing. Watch state legislatures for copycat NDA limits. The practical tell for operators is local: a county board that used to vote on incentives in closed session will start asking for a public load number.
Does the letter force companies to cancel NDAs?
No. It is an information request. The companion bill would void certain official-side NDAs if enacted.
Did Amazon change its practice?
First-day coverage reported that Amazon said it no longer uses NDAs with government partners for data-center projects. Confirm against the companyβs own statement before relying on that in a filing.
Are trade secrets banned?
Sponsors describe a carve-out for ordinary trade-secret filings. The fight is over gagging public officials on subsidies, power and water.
Should tenants in a hyperscaler park act?
Yes. Ask the landlord which public-official NDAs sit under the campus and whether incentive recitals can be summarized.
Is this only a U.S. issue?
The letters and bill are U.S. federal. Similar local-transparency fights are already running in several states.
Son GΓΌncelleme / Last Updated: October 1, 2026
Related: Warren probe of AI tax subsidies Β· Nvidia buyback authorization Β· Corporate Governance hub