Amazon says it has stopped using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with government agencies on its data centre projects. AWS chief executive Matt Garman made the commitment on 2 October 2026, alongside new promises on community engagement, infrastructure costs and local investment.
The change could make it easier for residents to question data centre proposals before crucial decisions are taken. But Amazon’s published data centre commitment does not explicitly say it has cancelled old NDAs, that contractors are covered, or that every project’s commercial and environmental records will become public. Those are the practical questions councils, journalists, and organisations evaluating AI infrastructure ask.
Amazon’s promise covers government NDAs, not every form of secrecy
Garman says Amazon no longer uses NDAs with government agencies involved in its projects. The company also promises community open houses, earlier engagement, and annual reporting on energy use, energy efficiency, water use, and the proportion of energy supplied by carbon-free sources.
These are separate commitments. Ending an NDA may allow an official to discuss a proposed facility, while annual environmental reporting may tell the public more about operations. Neither statement, on its own, guarantees an early release of site-specific forecasts or negotiated incentive agreements.
| Transparency question | What Amazon has announced | What still needs checking |
|---|---|---|
| New NDAs with government agencies | Amazon says it no longer uses them on its projects. | How the rule is documented and applied across locations. |
| Existing confidentiality agreements | No explicit cancellation in the announcement. | Whether previous signatories have been released. |
| Developers, advisers and contractors | Not specifically addressed. | Whether intermediaries can still seek confidentiality. |
| Power and water data | Annual public reporting is promised. | Site-level detail, reporting dates and independently verifiable figures. |
| Commercial terms and public incentives | Community engagement and economic benefits are discussed. | Publication of tax relief, utility obligations and negotiated conditions before approval. |
Why removing an NDA may matter before planning approval
A data centre can move through land assembly, grid-connection discussions, tax negotiations, and planning reviews before most residents realise which company will ultimately use the site. Confidentiality can make early scrutiny harder, particularly where local officials cannot identify the prospective operator or explain the project’s expected demands.
Removing that constraint could let officials answer questions earlier and discuss alternative locations, noise controls and public costs while changes are still possible. It does not automatically require a public hearing, alter zoning rules or override every exemption in public records law. Those obligations depend on the jurisdiction and the documents involved.
Timing is therefore a better test than the number of meetings held. An open house after a binding agreement or permit decision offers less opportunity to influence a project than disclosure before the council votes. Residents should ask when material information first became available, not simply whether Amazon eventually published it.
The overlooked loophole: who actually signs the agreement?
The company proposing a site, the land’s legal owner, the developer arranging utilities, and the eventual Cloud operator may be different organisations. A government can negotiate with an intermediary long before the final AWS connection is publicly identified. Reports of previous Amazon-related projects have raised precisely this issue.
Amazon’s wording refers to NDAs with government agencies it works with. It does not explicitly address confidentiality agreements signed by outside developers, advisers, or other counterparties, nor does it explain how it treats historic agreements. That is a question about the announcement’s scope, not evidence that Amazon is continuing the practice through third parties.
A useful disclosure test is to request the names of the landowner, development vehicle, end tenant and each party negotiating concessions or utility connections. The council should also determine whether any agreement prevents officials from sharing information another party provides. Without that map, ending one category of NDA may make it hard to trace important project decisions.
Five documents local authorities should request before committing public resources
- Project ownership and disclosure record: Identify the end operator, developers and representatives, together with previous NDAs and any remaining confidentiality claims.
- Electricity and grid-cost assessment: Show peak megawatt demand, connection upgrades, who pays for them and what happens if projected demand or investment changes.
- Water assessment: Separate anticipated withdrawals from consumption, identify the water source and disclose drought and wastewater arrangements. National averages cannot substitute for local supply conditions.
- Noise and emissions evidence: Provide modelling for cooling equipment, construction activity and backup generators, distinguishing permitted maximum emissions from expected operating hours.
- Public-benefit agreement: Set out tax concessions, projected permanent jobs versus construction jobs, community contributions, delivery milestones and remedies if promised benefits are not delivered.
Public access will still be shaped by local law, legitimate confidentiality exemptions, and the proposal’s stage; the aim is not to demand server configurations or customers’ private information. It is to make the costs, obligations and decision-makers visible while there is time to challenge assumptions.
A $1 billion pledge does not settle the infrastructure bill
Amazon also announced more than $1 billion of additional investment over five years for US communities hosting data centres, including training, education and energy-efficiency measures. It says it works with utilities and regulators so the energy prices its facilities pay cover required energy and grid improvements.
Those commitments need examining separately. Funding a school upgrade is not the same transaction as paying for a new substation. A council evaluating a project should distinguish voluntary grants, legally enforceable infrastructure contributions, tax incentives and costs that might otherwise be recovered through household or business bills. It should also identify who bears risk if a project is delayed, downsized or cancelled.
Likewise, Amazon’s national claims about water efficiency cannot determine whether a particular site has adequate supplies during a dry period. Useful evidence is local: seasonal demand, competing users, connection capacity, and proposed mitigation measures.
What Cloud and AI procurement teams should take from the announcement
For organisations considering AWS capacity, this changes community-facing infrastructure governance. It is not a new service-level agreement, a promise of lower Cloud prices or evidence that any particular AWS region has additional capacity. Customers should still verify data residency, availability commitments, operating costs and the security responsibilities in their own contracts.
This parallels other voluntary AI governance announcements: a published principle becomes useful to a buyer only when its scope and verification process are clear. Our coverage of Microsoft’s draft Humanist AI code of conduct explains a similar distinction between a stated policy and an operational guarantee. Application-level risks also remain separate from where a data centre is built, as our AI agent security guide explains.
The next test is disclosure, not another pledge
On 30 September, US Representative Jamie Raskin, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Amazon and several other major technology companies for information about their use of data centre NDAs. His letter to Amazon requests details on confidentiality agreements, proposed facilities, projected electricity and water consumption, and whether NDAs restricted responses to public enquiries. It asks for answers by 13 October 2026.
That request provides a concrete checkpoint, although a lawmaker’s request should not be confused with a finding of wrongdoing. The most useful follow-up from Amazon would be clarity on past agreements, contractor coverage and the publication of comparable project-level information before local approvals are finalised.
Amazon’s policy removes a stated obstacle to discussions with public officials. Whether communities gain meaningful oversight will depend on what they can inspect, when they receive it and which parties remain bound by confidentiality.
