centers

I recently travelled to Sorowako, South Sulawesi, for a corporate social responsibility programme supported by Vale Indonesia. I helped local journalists use artificial intelligence ethically and responsibly in investigative reporting: reading documents, identifying inconsistencies and preparing interviews while keeping verification and editorial judgement in human hands.

Yet Sorowako made it difficult to see AI merely as a newsroom tool. The town sits within the industrial landscape powering Indonesia’s nickel ambitions. Materials processed across Sulawesi are entering global battery supply chains, while AI is moving beyond screens into machines, factories, ports and mines. Here, both transformations occupy the same geography.

Indonesia produced roughly three-fifths of the world’s mined nickel in 2024. The boom has attracted smelters, battery-material plants and billions in foreign investment. Yet how much Indonesian technological capability is emerging around it—and how much is taking root in the regions carrying the industrial and ecological burden? US Geological Survey

Responsible AI skills expand local journalists’ agency. The same principle should reach the industrial value chain. Mining regions should participate as producers of knowledge, technology and services, beyond extraction and social compensation.

The Physical-AI Window

Autonomous equipment, machine vision and robots able to act in the real world are bringing AI into factories, warehouses and difficult industrial environments.

The International Federation of Robotics recorded 542,000 industrial robot installations in 2024. Asia absorbed 74 percent; China installed 295,000 units and now operates more than two million. Goldman Sachs estimates the more speculative humanoid segment could reach US$38 billion by 2035. The projection is uncertain, but the physical-AI market is already widening. International Federation of Robotics, Goldman Sachs

China treats this frontier as industrial policy. Indonesia’s credible entry point is more practical. Mines need robotic inspection and safer hauling; their environmental monitoring also needs improvement. These are difficult operating problems—and domestic companies already need them solved. State Council Information Office of China

Nickel is a launching pad, not a guarantee of robotics demand. Many robots use none. Indonesia’s advantage lies in combining its mineral and battery base with industrial sites where new systems can be tested.

Its downstreaming strategy, however, remains highly linear: ore becomes processed nickel, then battery material, batteries and eventually electric vehicles. Horizontal downstreaming would build capabilities that spread sideways from this chain. Industrial AI developed for nickel could later serve copper or geothermal operations. Low-carbon processing and environmental technology could travel even further.

The objective is to convert temporary geological power into capability that outlives the commodity. Progress can be read through a downstreaming capability ladder: enforcement, processing, supplier formation and technological ownership. Indonesia has climbed the first two stages more decisively than many peers. The last two remain unfinished.

Different Positions on the Ladder

Canada illustrates the mature destination. In July 2026, its government backed mining projects using AI, robotics and subsurface imaging, alongside work on ecological restoration. Its mines function as testing grounds for domestic technology and exportable expertise. Government of Canada

Chile offers a more achievable Global South pathway. CORFO and the National Piloting Center help suppliers test technology under real conditions. Expande translates operational problems into industry challenges; its network has involved more than 2,500 suppliers and generated over 180 contracts. Chile has not completed the journey into higher-value manufacturing, which makes its lessons more useful for Indonesia. Expande

The Philippines shows the cost of stopping earlier. The world’s second-largest nickel producer exported 44.97 million wet metric tonnes of ore in 2024 while operating only two processing plants. Its Senate approved a phased ban on unprocessed ore exports in February 2025, but the provision was removed four months later amid concerns over mine closures, financing and insufficient domestic capacity. Argus, Reuters

Thailand shows another route onto the ladder. Without Indonesia’s nickel leverage, it used subsidies and tax incentives tied to local-production obligations. Those policies have attracted more than US$4 billion in EV investment, while Chinese brands now account for over 70 percent of EV sales. Reuters BYD’s Rayong plant—its first in Southeast Asia, opened in July 2024—anchors the emerging production cluster. Reuters Thai suppliers are entering the chain, but the transfer of deeper engineering and intellectual property is less visible. Thailand has shown that scale and supplier participation can be built quickly; technological ownership remains the harder rung.

Indonesia enforced its ore-export ban and built processing scale, although much technology and capital came from abroad. Its next test is whether enforcement produces Indonesian suppliers—and whether those suppliers eventually own technology.

MIND ID and Vale as Ecosystem Builders

MIND ID, Indonesia’s state-owned mining holding and Vale Indonesia’s largest shareholder, could orchestrate the next stage by pooling operational problems across its portfolio and financing the pilots that address them. It could then route proven solutions into procurement, allowing technology tested in nickel to travel into copper or tin. Sorowako is the natural lighthouse site. Vale Indonesia could open bounded challenges in worker safety or land rehabilitation, provide controlled access for testing and give successful suppliers a path into procurement. Vale Indonesia

The investment network is already multi-aligned. The Pomalaa project brings together Vale Indonesia, China’s Huayou and Ford from the United States. Separately, the nearly US$6 billion CATL–Antam–Indonesia Battery Corporation project links North Maluku with battery manufacturing in West Java. Indonesia is hosting production relationships that cross geopolitical blocs. Vale Indonesia, CATL

These relationships can extend from batteries towards battery-powered industrial intelligence. Indonesia’s return should be measured by whether local engineers gain ownership and the ability to sell abroad.

Connecting Sorowako to Rebana—and the World

This transition needs a spatial architecture connecting Indonesia’s nickel-producing east with Java’s manufacturing and logistics base. Sorowako is not starting from zero. Politeknik Sorowako grew from a technical academy into a vocational institution oriented towards local industrial needs. It offers a base for building capability close to the mines. Vale Indonesia

The polytechnic could anchor field engineering and testing. ITB’s Cirebon campus, within West Java’s Rebana corridor, could add advanced research and systems integration. Joint laboratories and supplier incubation would allow knowledge to move in both directions. Institut Teknologi Bandung

Patimban International Port gives Rebana an external gateway. Its container terminal currently has annual capacity of 250,000 twenty-foot equivalent units and is being expanded to 1.65 million. The port’s long-term design targets 7.5 million TEU per year; this is planned capacity, not present throughput. A regular international service launched in July 2026 now connects West Java with Singapore, Thailand and major Chinese ports. ANTARA

The emerging chain is tangible. Field capability developed in Sorowako could be refined in Cirebon, manufactured across Rebana and exported through Patimban.

This is the spatial expression of a multiplex industrial-digital ecosystem. Yet it carries an internal risk. If ecological burdens remain in Sulawesi while intellectual property and high-value firms accumulate in Java, Indonesia will reproduce a double asymmetry within its own borders. Rebana should become a scaling node without monopolising knowledge. Contracts and technical capacity must circulate back towards producing regions.

Vale’s support for Politeknik Sorowako could therefore evolve from conventional CSR into a long-term capability strategy. Skilled work and local suppliers can give communities a stake in the industry’s future, reducing resistance rooted in exclusion. None of this substitutes for environmental performance, land rights or meaningful participation.

Geopolitical Localisation

ASEAN adds a wider market. Its Economic Community Strategic Plan 2026–2030 calls for sustainable investment across the minerals value chain and stronger capacity in mining technology, research and innovation. ASEAN Economic Community Strategic Plan 2026–2030

Equipment proven under Sulawesi’s heat, dust and uneven connectivity could find buyers across the Global South. Indonesia can occupy the critical-mineral and industrial-intelligence layer of ASEAN’s AI economy.

Manufacturing in Indonesia could also help Chinese-linked firms diversify production. Factory location alone does not dissolve geopolitical concerns. US connected-vehicle rules show that governments may scrutinise who owns the software and retains remote access. Europe’s foreign-subsidy regime adds another layer of exposure. US Bureau of Industry and Security, European Commission

The defensible strategy is geopolitical localisation. Foreign production in Indonesia must create substantial domestic value and withstand scrutiny over ownership, supply chains and cybersecurity. Indonesian participation in engineering and intellectual property is central. This would make the country a bridge production node with capabilities of its own, rather than a passport factory for technology routed through its territory.

When I left Sorowako, what stayed with me was the proximity between a community learning to adapt to AI and industrial operations capable of becoming laboratories for it. The same region supplying global industries could help create safer mines and more credible environmental monitoring.

Nickel’s geopolitical leverage will not last. The durable test is what Indonesia can build before that advantage fades.

If firms and technical institutions take root in Sulawesi, then scale across Indonesia, Sorowako will have done more than supply the AI economy. It will have helped Indonesia learn how to compete within it.

In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.

The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.

A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.

“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.

“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.

Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.

The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.

Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.

Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”

Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.

But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.

Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”

The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.

Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.

“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.

Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”

But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.

Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.

“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.

Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.

New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.

An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”

“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.

The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.

Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.

“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security bought two of the largest immigrant detention facilities in California for $1.5 billion, according to the private prison company that sold them.

The purchase comes as the department — flush with cash after Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act infused the agency with $170 billion — has moved to scale up its capacity to detain immigrants without relying as heavily on private prison corporations.

In announcement Monday, the Tennessee-based CoreCivic said the sale of the 2,560-bed California City Detention Facility and the 1,994-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego closed on July 2.

The company said it expects net proceeds of about $1.1 billion after income taxes and transaction expenses.

Ryan Gustin, public affairs director for CoreCivic, said such sales are not uncommon and that “the process was marked with rigor and integrity.” He added that the valuations were established through the federal government’s required appraisal process, using independent appraisers, who determined objective fair market value.

The sale doesn’t immediately change anything at the facilities — CoreCivic expects to continue managing them under existing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the company and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But the terms of those contracts could be modified given the change in ownership, the filing states. The California City facility contract expires in August 2027 and the Otay Mesa facility contract expires in December 2029, with the option to extend for another five years.

“We are pleased with the sales of these two mission-critical facilities for the Company’s government partner, which demonstrates the value of the Company’s underlying real estate portfolio, while reflecting our role as a long-term, flexible solutions provider to government,” CoreCivic CEO Patrick Swindle said in the announcement.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During a quarterly earnings call in May, George Zoley, CEO of the GEO Group, another major private prison corporation, said that the company had been in discussions with ICE “regarding the potential sale of multiple facilities.”

Critics of the purchases of detention facilities say the Trump administration is simply looking to avoid state and local oversight by bringing them under federal ownership. That issue was raised during the GEO Group earnings call when a participant later asked why the federal government wants to own the facilities instead of contracting with third parties.

If the facilities are federally owned, Zoley replied, there are “more protections from unwarranted litigation that infringes upon the activities of the ICE processing centers.”

Zoley said federal ownership would bolster the legal defense of the facilities and the argument that “states can only have very limited involvement.”

“There’s been litigation regarding overseeing medical services, food services, general cleanliness, etc.,” Zoley continued. “It’s really unprecedented and I believe it’s fundamentally unconstitutional. As some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities, I think the logical solution to much of that is federal ownership of the facilities.”

California tried to kick private detention operators out of the state, but the 2020 law was overturned in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, state leaders have established oversight mechanisms through laws that allow for monitoring and investigation of detention centers by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities.

Asked to comment about the sale, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said his congressional oversight visits to facilities operated by CoreCivic have shown that immigrants who pose no public safety threat are being held in “unacceptable conditions.”

“Whether these facilities are operated by a private contractor or owned by the federal government, my expectations remain the same,” he said. “I will continue demanding transparency, accountability, and humane conditions that respect the dignity and rights of every person in immigration detention.”

Eight ICE detention facilities now operate in California, with a combined capacity to hold nearly 9,000 people.

The California City and Otay Mesa facilities have both been the subject of lawsuits by detainees alleging detainee mistreatment. CoreCivic calls such allegations unfounded and says it complies with all regulations concerning the treatment of detainees.

In its announcement on Monday, CoreCivic said the company is in discussions with ICE about potentially selling additional detention facilities, though it said those talks are in various stages and it’s unclear whether the sales will go through.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation to require proposed data centers to provide estimates of their water usage last year, saying he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” without understanding the impact on businesses and consumers.

Opposition to the mammoth tech hubs and their massive thirst of water, power and land has only escalated throughout the state and nation ever since. In just a matter of months, Newsom again could find himself in the political crosshairs.

Several bills to regulate the facilities and increase public transparency on their impacts are progressing in the California Legislature, which could create a conundrum for a governor who has long aligned with the tech industry but also paints himself as an environmental and social justice advocate.

“I think the governor is in a fragile position,” said Megan Mullin, a public policy professor at UCLA. “Tech has been a long backer of his, but at the same time there is this growing national outcry against data centers.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence. The newer centers built to power AI are far larger than their original counterparts and require immense amounts of water and energy.

The facilities also contribute to fossil fuel emissions, with Cornell University researchers estimating last year that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030. Fossil fuel emissions are drivers of climate change and linked to a range of health conditions, including asthma, various cancers and birth defects.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last week that the Trump administration will not set national environmental requirements or recommendations for the data center industry, leaving it to state lawmakers to determine best policies.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said the nation will likely look to the Golden State for guidance.

“California’s laws will create a national model,” he said. “We’re the home of Silicon Valley and we’re just a massive state — the way we regulate data centers will set the tone.”

The political landscape around data centers has since changed since Newsom’s veto in October, said Dan Schnur, a political science professor who teaches at UC Berkeley and USC.

“No one should assume he will automatically act in the same way,” Schnur said. “Newsom is an incredibly savvy politician so he is clearly aware that voters are a lot more upset or concerned about data centers than they were a year ago.”

A Gallup poll released last month found 7 out of 10 Americans oppose data centers being built in their area.

The facilities can create thousands of jobs for construction workers and generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes. The artificial intelligence they power is also — at least temporarily — boosting the stock market, leading to more tax dollars for California.

But residents who live near hyperscale centers have expressed outrage over a range of issues, including health impacts, spiking utility bills, constant noise, dropping water pressure and concerns about potentially losing their land through eminent domain. Meanwhile, community meetings about data centers are growing contentious, with police arresting a farmer in Oklahoma, three women in Wisconsin and a man in California.

Earlier this month, residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.

“Six months ago, politicians of both parties were falling all over each other to bring data centers into their states,” Schnur said. “Now that the public backlash has erupted, they are working just as hard to distance themselves from these projects.”

With Newsom eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, he might be reluctant to brand himself as a defender of an increasingly unpopular industry.

But Schnur said the governor likely also has concerns about angering one of his biggest backers.

“The tech community is a critical part of Newsom’s donor base, so he has to keep fundraising in mind when he makes these decisions,” Schnur said.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to comment on data centers or pending legislation.

Newsom, during an interview at a Center for American Progress conference in May, said the concern that data centers may drive up electricity costs for Californians is a “legit issue,” but not the main one.

“The tech genie is not going to go back in the bottle,” Newsom said. “Just saying that you should not or cannot build a data center is not going to slow this technology down. What can be, will be. Nature of technology. And so we just have to steer it and not make the mistakes we made with social media.”

Among the measures in the Legislature are two bills from Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). SB 886 would create a corporate tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades. SB 887 would ban data centers from receiving ministerial exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

Neither bill picked up support from Republicans, but both cleared the Senate and were recently referred to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

Padilla represents Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico where plans for a 950,000–square–foot data center face fierce opposition from residents. The county exempted the proposal from CEQA, which requires projects to undergo an extensive state environmental review before breaking ground.

The city of Imperial sued the county earlier this year, arguing the project should not have received an exemption. The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club joined the lawsuit last month. The county board of supervisors last week approved a 45-day moratorium on all new data centers to allow the county to evaluate proposed data center development.

Two other data center-related bills recently passed the Assembly, each picking up support from a few Republicans. They now await action from the Senate.

AB 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) would require data center owners to provide an estimate under penalty of perjury about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license. AB 1577 from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption.

Ben Green, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Michigan who is researching how data centers impact communities, said reporting requirements are a “bare minimum” type of regulation, making it especially noteworthy that Newsom vetoed a similar measure last year.

For comparison, several states are weighing more restrictive bills — New York recently sent legislation to the governor’s desk that would enact a one-year moratorium.

“It seems that there was a ton of lobbying pressure that he was getting,” Green said. “The tech industry doesn’t want to have any restrictions.”

Green said data centers could be a hot topic in upcoming elections, as Americans on both sides of the aisle are expressing valid concerns.

“There’s not an easy fix for getting the public on board with data centers because their critiques are grounded in reality,” he said. “This is not just some sort of reactionary NIMBY-ism or pearl clutching.”