OpenAI's Stargate project struggling to get off the ground, due to tariffs

Tariffs, Taxation, and Constitutional Power

• Large part of the thread argues tariffs are effectively taxes, and the US system intended Congress—not the president—to control taxation.
• Many see current tariffs as “rule by executive fiat,” enabled by emergency powers stretched beyond their intent (trade deficit defined as “emergency”).
• Some argue voters “got what they asked for” because Trump clearly campaigned on tariffs; others counter that:
  • Voters didn’t understand tariffs as taxes and were explicitly misled that “other countries” would pay.
  • Delegating taxation-by-tariff to the executive violates the constitutional design, even if it’s technically legal.
  • Congress is abdicating its duty out of partisanship and fear of retaliation from the president’s base.
• Debate over whether this constitutes “taxation without representation”: one side says Trump is the chosen representative; the other insists Congress is the true tax representative.

Stargate Scale, Funding, and Tariffs

• Multiple comments correct the article: Stargate is a $500 billion initiative, not $500 million; several express disbelief such a huge number is being treated casually.
• Some see tariffs as only a 5–15% cost increase for hardware, not enough alone to derail a half‑trillion project; they suspect the tariff angle is overplayed for clicks.
• Others highlight investor fears of overcapacity in data centers and question whether OpenAI, which “no longer has a clear edge,” can justify that scale.
• SoftBank’s lack of concrete financing months after promising an “immediate” $100B is taken as a sign the hype outran reality.

Compute-Maximalism vs. Research and Efficiency

• Several criticize the “bigger data center = better AI” mindset as a characteristically American brute‑force approach, especially in light of more efficient models like DeepSeek.
• Others argue compute and foundational research are complementary: constraints can drive breakthroughs, but hitting a compute ceiling can also block progress.
• Concern that today’s cheap or free LLM access artificially inflates demand; once prices rise to reflect real costs, much of the capacity being planned could sit idle, echoing the fiber overbuild of the dot‑com era.

Global Realignment and Non-US Opportunities

• Some suggest the rest of the world should exploit US self‑inflicted instability by building their own AI and data‑center industries, viewing the US as an unreliable partner.
• EU commenters note:
  • There are already shifts to EU providers driven by data rules.
  • The main constraint isn’t lack of capital but lower risk appetite and heavy bureaucracy.
• Others predict Trump‑era damage to US institutions (courts, trade reliability) will last for decades, regardless of election outcomes.

Historical Analogies and Voter Responsibility

• Extensive side-debate compares the situation to the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party:
  • Nuanced recounting that colonial resistance was driven heavily by economic elites and smuggling interests, not just noble “taxation without representation.”
• Long argument over responsibility of non‑voters and third‑party voters in a binary system; some insist “not voting is effectively a vote for whoever wins,” others reject that framing as unfair to the marginalized.

Media, Hype, and Source Skepticism

• Several criticize the TechCrunch piece as a thin rehash of Bloomberg, with sensational framing (“tariffs could”) and little evidence that tariffs are the primary obstacle.
• Some are annoyed by heavy reliance on anonymous “people familiar with the matter,” arguing this allows any narrative to be laundered as reporting.
• A few also view the coverage as riding two popular sentiment waves—anti‑AI and anti‑Trump—to drive engagement rather than inform.