Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being against a ban is equivalent to requiring that something be allowed. It might or might not end up happening, but either way it is permitted.
"Requiring something be allowed" != "requiring them to have them"
How else could states that deny those data centers if they cannot pass legislation to prevent them or require XYZ parameters before they are allowed to be built? Your argument is nonsensical in my opinion especially in context. I get that if you do a string compare they are different sentences but the semantic effects of the two statements are equavalanet in the framing that comapnies are actively trying to permit and build them.