ProPublica finds Burgum kept millions in AI investments while pushing data centers on public land

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum retained between $18.1 million and $64.4 million in AI-company investments while helping lead the push to build data centers on public lands, a ProPublica investigation published November 6 found. The disclosure puts his personal financial interests alongside decisions about opening federally managed land to the industry in which he has invested.

The estimate draws on Burgum’s 2026 financial disclosure and an analysis that public-lands advocacy group Save Our Parks shared with ProPublica. The group used companies’ marketing materials to identify AI-related holdings. The wide dollar range reflects federal disclosure rules, which let officials report investment values in bands rather than exact amounts.

The holdings survived confirmation

Burgum’s technology wealth predates his Cabinet role. He sold a software company to Microsoft about 25 years ago and co-founded Arthur Ventures, the investment firm where much of his wealth remains. His Senate-confirmation ethics agreement required him to leave his positions at Arthur, but not surrender his financial interests there.

He subsequently met with representatives of companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet more than 20 times from January through November 2025. That count comes from a compilation of his schedules that watchdog group Public Citizen shared with ProPublica. Interior defended industry engagement as part of his responsibility for energy production and infrastructure.

In October 2026, several Democratic senators demanded that Burgum stop efforts to develop data centers on public lands and provide transparency about his role. Their letter challenged the department’s land-use push, which has offered federal property as an option amid local opposition to projects.

Legal compliance is not the only ethics test

Ethics professors and lawyers consulted by ProPublica said Burgum’s investments appeared acceptable under the relevant criminal statute. They described a high threshold for wrongdoing, such as an official approving permits for a company in which they have a substantial investment. Their assessment did not resolve the separate question of appearances.

Cynthia Brown, senior ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said noncriminal ethics rules also instruct officials to avoid work that creates an apparent conflict. She argued that Burgum’s support for data centers on federal land while holding AI investments falls within that concern.

Interior rejected any suggestion that personal investments drive Burgum’s decisions, calling it false and unsupported. A spokesperson told ProPublica that the secretary had met his federal ethics and financial-disclosure obligations. Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer, nevertheless argued that Burgum should step back from decisions benefiting the industry.

In the Bush administration, the answer would’ve been ‘he has to recuse,’ I can guarantee you that.

Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer, speaking to ProPublica

Permits advance, but the public return is unsettled

The land-development effort is already in the permitting system. ProPublica found that the Bureau of Land Management was reviewing applications for about 15 data centers and 17 associated infrastructure projects across six Western states. Those supporting projects include nuclear power plants and transmission lines, according to an agency spokesperson and its records system.

One proposed data center near Boulder City, Nevada, illustrates the review disputes. Its developer had permission for a solar plant before changing plans. The bureau approved the change in June without studying potential environmental effects. An Interior appeals board later paused the project and returned it for further review.

The financial terms for the public remain unresolved. Interior says it is using a 1976 land-management law to permit data centers, although that law did not envision them. Unlike oil royalties or solar plants’ per-megawatt fees, the main data-center charge appears set to be annual fair-market-value rent. Those rents can be low; the public’s economic return will become clearer as projects receive permits.