DOJ Tells Federal Court xAI's Unpermitted Gas Turbines Are a National Security Asset

What the DOJ Filed

The Justice Department on Monday filed court papers in NAACP v. xAI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, siding with xAI and the state of Mississippi in asking the court to dismiss the case, according to Wired.

The DOJ's memorandum argues that stopping xAI's turbines "threatens American national, economic, and energy security by seeking to shut off the power supply for artificial-intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War's [sic] military operations."

Cameron Stanley, the Department of Defense's chief digital and artificial intelligence officer, filed a separate declaration stating that Grok's government model supports "vital national security missions" and was used as part of recent U.S. strikes against Iran. Stanley identified four AI models total, including Grok, operating across classified Secret and Top-Secret networks.

What the NAACP Is Alleging

The NAACP, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Earthjustice, filed suit in April 2026 against xAI and its energy subsidiary MZX Tech. The original complaint identified 27 unpermitted methane gas turbines running at Colossus 2, xAI's second data center in Southaven, Mississippi, just outside Memphis.

By mid-May, according to emails between xAI and state regulators obtained by the Southern Environmental Law Center and reported by Wired, that number had grown to 57. Many of those turbines were added after the lawsuit was filed.

Earthjustice says the turbines are likely the largest industrial source of nitrogen oxides in the greater Memphis area. The NAACP's complaint seeks to halt the turbines' operation and fine xAI up to $124,426 per day of violation under the Clean Air Act.

Memphis and its surroundings already carry some of the highest asthma rates in the country. The NAACP argues the turbines increase risk of asthma attacks and heart disease in communities already shouldering a disproportionate pollution burden.

The Permit Question

State agencies in both Tennessee and Mississippi have argued xAI has a one-year window to operate the turbines without clean air permits. The NAACP contends that position conflicts with EPA regulations, meaning there is a direct dispute about which legal standard applies, not just whether the turbines are harmful.

The gap matters because if the NAACP's reading of EPA rules is correct, xAI has been out of compliance since day one. If the state agencies are right, xAI has time to get into compliance on its own timeline.

The DOJ's national security argument is not frivolous on its face. If Grok's government model is genuinely integrated into classified military networks and active strike operations, interrupting the power supply could create real operational gaps. Cameron Stanley made that case on the record under penalty of perjury.

xAI did not seek permits before running the turbines. The company added 30 more turbines after getting sued. Now the federal government's argument is that those same unpermitted turbines are so important to national defense that a court should dismiss the case against them.

If a company can acquire a de facto exemption from environmental law by embedding itself in classified government operations, the Clean Air Act's enforcement mechanism becomes optional for anyone with the right contracts. That is a structural problem that transcends this specific case.

What Happens Next

The court must now weigh whether the national security justification presented by the DOJ is sufficient grounds to dismiss, or whether the NAACP's preliminary injunction request moves forward. The preliminary injunction hearing, if not preempted by the dismissal motion, would require the court to balance the alleged public health harm against the government's stated operational reliance on xAI's infrastructure.

The unresolved legal question is whether a federal agency's declaration of operational necessity can override a private plaintiff's Clean Air Act standing, a question that, as of June 16, 2026, has no clear precedent in this specific context.