I remember the moment the claim landed on TV: Kevin O’Leary, eyes steady, promising he had “guys” who could trace China’s hand in a Utah protest. The room felt smaller after that—people leaned in, waiting for proof. Days later he posted a short, quiet retraction: no evidence, just his imagination.
Mr. Wonderful admitted he can’t prove China is behind the data center protests — but in his heart, he still believes it.
— Kevin O’Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) June 25, 2026
On Fox News, he claimed IP digs found two cells inside Utah — what he said and why it mattered
I watched his delivery; you probably saw it too: confident, specific, hard to ignore. He told Fox News that experts had traced IP addresses and uncovered “cells” tied to China. When someone names a foreign adversary and attaches numbers, the claim acts like a magician’s sleight—it distracts from the fine print.
Then the facts did what facts do: they stayed quiet until someone demanded proof. On X (formerly Twitter) O’Leary posted a clarification Thursday saying he has no evidence that Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, Gabrielle Finlayson, Taylor Knuth or Josh Katner were funded by China or the Chinese Communist Party. He also removed earlier posts that made those claims.
Did Kevin O’Leary accuse China of funding the protests?
Yes, he publicly alleged foreign funding and pointed to IP tracing as his source. But he later retracted the allegation, admitting there was no evidence. The narrative shifted from an accusation to a deleted post and a short correction on X.
At public meetings and town halls, opposition grew loud — how the Stratos Project became a flashpoint
I sat through recordings of town halls where farmers, tech workers and local elected officials spoke in turn. You could hear the pattern: environmental worry, property-rights fear, and distrust of an outsider proposing massive infrastructure. Those voices turned into a political force.
The planned Stratos Project would span two 20,000-acre sites in Box Elder County’s Hansel Valley and Locomotive Valley, each hosting clusters of data centers. Polling from Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute of Politics shows opposition at about 60% of Utah voters versus 26% in support. Politicians are paying attention—Senate President Stuart Adams lost a primary to an opponent who campaigned against the project.
What is the Stratos Project and why is it controversial?
Stratos is a proposed pair of massive data-center clusters in northern Utah. Opponents raise concerns about water use, power demand, land rights and local control; supporters tout economic development. The dispute turned political, with local primaries and strong coverage from outlets like ABC4 and Deseret News amplifying citizen pushback.
He floated “millions” and “hundreds of millions” — the money claim and how it landed
You heard him mention a slush fund on national TV; many of us winced. He suggested opponents were being bankrolled by foreign actors with “millions, hundreds of millions of dollars.” That number sounds decisive: money implies coordination.
He used imprecise figures—phrases like “millions” and “hundreds of millions.” If you translate the claim into concrete terms, a $100,000,000 suggestion would be USD $100,000,000 (→ €92,000,000). But specificity matters: claims about funding need transparent ledgers, not insinuation. When O’Leary failed to produce documentation, the claim collapsed and he retracted it.
How did Utah voters respond to the data center plan?
They pushed back. The Deseret News poll shows a majority opposed the project. Locally organized groups—Alliance for a Better Utah and others—led the resistance. That opposition unseated a powerful state senator and shifted the political calculus for other lawmakers who had seemed willing to approve the project.
On social platforms and local news, the narrative rewired itself — what happens next
I read threads on X, watched coverage from Fox News and local affiliates, and listened to residents. The story became less about foreign influence and more about land use, power, and political accountability. That’s where the debate now lives: in hearings, in polls, and in primary ballots.
O’Leary’s correction doesn’t erase the initial charge. If you follow media mechanics, you know allegations spread faster than retractions; the echo lingers like the hiss of a pressure cooker about to sigh. Activists and reporters will keep digging. You should expect more filings, more town halls, and more strategy from both sides—Shark Tank fame and all.
But in his heart, he still believes China is the culprit — and belief is its own political fuel. If you were standing at a county meeting in Hansel Valley, which version of the story would convince you?