Amazon Says It Has Stopped Using NDAs as It Pushes Back on Data Center Criticism

Highlights

Amazon Web Services CEO Matt Garman announced the company has ceased using nondisclosure agreements with government agencies while seeking approval for new data centers. He argued data centers bring community benefits and sought to dispel four common concerns: water use, electricity costs, pollution, and limited local benefit. Amazon also emphasized over $1 billion in community contributions over three years and urged policymakers to avoid moratoriums that could harm U.S. competitiveness.

Sentiment Analysis

• 
  The overall tone of the piece is mixed. The company’s statement aims to reassure and present data centers as net-positive for communities, framing Amazon’s action on NDAs as an effort to increase transparency. The message contains defensive elements—seeking to counteract widespread skepticism and regulatory pushback—while also promoting Amazon’s investments and technical claims. Concerns from activists and independent watchdogs are given equal weight, creating a balanced but cautious sentiment that leans toward neutral-to-skeptical public perception.
  
  
  

  45%

  
  
  
  

Article Text

Amazon Web Services CEO Matt Garman stated that the company has stopped using nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in dealings with government agencies as part of its effort to obtain approvals for new data centers. The announcement appears within a broader response from Amazon addressing growing public concern about the siting and local impacts of data center projects. Garman used the statement to argue that data centers provide economic benefits to host communities and to challenge several widespread criticisms.

NDAs have become a focal point in complaints about transparency. Critics, including environmental advocates, say projects are sometimes announced only after permits are already secured and that developers or local officials have signed NDAs before the public was aware of proposals. Those transparency concerns have contributed to policy responses such as New York’s one-year moratorium on large data center permits and a wave of similar moratoriums under consideration nationwide. Garman warned that restrictive measures could harm U.S. competitiveness in attracting technology infrastructure investments.

Garman sought to counter four key narratives he identified as myths: that data centers use excessive amounts of water, drive up electricity costs, produce large-scale pollution, and confer few local benefits. Pointing to Amazon’s internal reporting, he noted that direct data center water consumption represents a small fraction of U.S. industrial water use, and he compared that footprint to other water-intensive activities. He also highlighted technological advances—such as new cooling approaches—that aim to reduce on-site water usage.

However, independent experts and observers caution that company figures may omit related water and energy use embedded in electricity generation and semiconductor manufacturing. They argue the full environmental footprint requires separate, independent study, and note that standardized reporting requirements are lacking at state and federal levels. These gaps in oversight and data create persistent uncertainty about net impacts and complicate comparisons between industries.

On electricity costs, Garman said rates have risen in some states with high data center concentrations but have fallen or grown more slowly in others, attributing increases where they occur to aging grids that lacked prior investment. Critics point to watchdog analyses that link data center growth to significant year-over-year price spikes on some regional grids, underscoring disparities between corporate assurances and local experiences.

Pollution and emissions also drew scrutiny. Garman emphasized that backup generators—often cited in permit documents with high permitted emissions—are rarely operated, saying they are idle most of the time and run mainly for maintenance testing. Still, opponents note that permit limits can be substantial on paper and worry about cumulative effects. For many community groups, permitted maximums remain a troubling sign even if operations rarely reach those levels.

Amazon highlighted community investments as a counterargument to claims that data centers offer limited local benefit. Garman said the company has donated more than $1 billion to communities where it maintains a significant data center presence over the past three years. This emphasis on financial contributions aims to demonstrate tangible local benefits, but some residents and advocates remain unconvinced, citing trust deficits and concerns about long-term land use, environmental impacts, and transparency in planning.

The broader debate reflects a wider crisis of trust between technology firms, governments, and communities. Analysts and industry observers note that even when companies make policy changes or share data, public skepticism can persist. Some opponents explicitly say they do not find tech companies’ explanations persuasive, which suggests that unilateral corporate disclosures may be insufficient to restore confidence. The conversation continues as states and localities weigh regulatory responses while companies underscore the strategic importance of data center investment for regional economies and national competitiveness.

Key Insights Table