AWS Chief Says Amazon Has Dropped NDAs for Data Center Projects Amid Local Backlash

Amazon Web Services is trying to calm a growing wave of community skepticism about data centers, and it is starting with one of the most common complaints: secrecy.

The company's CEO said Amazon no longer relies on nondisclosure agreements when it works with local governments and communities on new data center projects. NDAs have become a lightning rod in recent years. Residents and local officials in several areas have said that deals were negotiated behind closed doors, leaving the public to learn about a massive facility only after key decisions were made.

The comments come as data centers face more resistance than at any point in the cloud era. The AI boom has pushed tech companies to build at a furious pace, and the buildings are large, power hungry and often thirsty for water. Neighbors have raised concerns about electricity prices, strain on the grid, noise, land use and the relatively small number of permanent jobs these sites create compared with their size and tax breaks.

Secrecy has made those worries worse. When a developer or a public agency signs an NDA, elected officials can be barred from discussing the identity of the company behind a project, or even the scale of its resource demands. Critics argue that this undermines public debate and makes it harder for communities to weigh the tradeoffs. By saying it has stepped away from the practice, AWS is signaling that it wants to be seen as a more open partner.

The pledge is a notable shift in tone for an industry that has long preferred to keep site selection quiet, partly to avoid driving up land prices and partly to keep competitors in the dark. Dropping NDAs does not necessarily mean every detail of a project will be public from day one, and the company has not said how it will handle commercially sensitive information. Still, it removes one of the most visible symbols of the secrecy complaint.

It also fits a broader pattern. Large cloud providers have been rolling out commitments on water use, clean energy purchases and paying their own way for grid upgrades, all aimed at easing political pressure. Whether residents will be persuaded is another matter. Many of the objections are about the fundamental impact of the facilities rather than how they were announced, and transparency alone will not settle fights over power rates or water supplies.

For AWS, the stakes are high. Its growth depends on securing land, power and permits in many places at once, and local opposition can delay or kill projects. Making a public case that it operates in the open may help, but communities will likely judge the company by what it builds and what it costs them, not just by what it says.