At the September 9 town hall, everyone got handed a letter from Thom Mason, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The University has since published the full text, and you can read it at The University Record — please do, rather than taking my summary for it.
First thing I want to say: this was a step up. It’s signed by a named person with actual authority, on letterhead, and it engages with things people here have actually said. That’s more than we’ve generally gotten. Director Mason put his name on it and he deserves credit for that.
Now the rest of it.
What I accept
The letter says plainly that no plutonium or other nuclear or hazardous materials would be produced, used, or stored at the facility. That it wouldn’t be a military installation or a weapons production site. That plutonium pit production could never happen there because that work is confined to specific facilities in New Mexico and South Carolina.
I accept all of that, and I’d ask everyone else opposing this project to accept it too. It’s specific, it’s checkable, and it comes from the person in a position to know. If you’re still telling people this facility will store nuclear material or build weapons, stop. You’re wrong, and you’re making the rest of us look like we don’t know what we’re talking about.
Same goes for the “Tier 1 High Value Target Risk” language. Mason says no laboratory, university, or government agency classified it that way. If someone can produce a classification document, produce it. Otherwise that phrase should be retired.
But let me separate two things, because they get run together and they shouldn’t be. Whether any agency has formally designated this site is one question, and the answer is no. Whether a facility running nuclear weapons stockpile simulation draws hostile attention regardless of what it says on a form is a different question entirely, and a formal designation isn’t what makes that real.
The second concern is legitimate, and Supervisor Stumbo made it directly at the October 1 town hall. Los Alamos is a federal defense contractor. The University has confirmed computational work related to nuclear modernization will happen here. Nuclear weapons are back in mainstream political conversation. A township raising that is not getting its facts wrong, and nothing I’ve written about the classification language should be read as saying otherwise.
What the letter confirms
Three things in here are more forthcoming than anything the University has published, and they’re worth noting precisely because Mason chose to say them.
Nuclear weapons work is part of the mission. The letter says some computational research at the facility could relate to nuclear modernization — modeling and simulation to assess the safety, security and reliability of the existing stockpile without testing. That’s stockpile stewardship. It’s computation rather than manufacturing, exactly as he describes. It’s also, plainly, work in support of the nuclear weapons program. People living next to it are entitled to know that, and now they do.
Worth adding: that’s not new information, it’s just newly public. The 2023 non-disclosure agreement between the University and Los Alamos states its purpose as a computing facility and office building in support of the Advanced Simulation & Computing Program and Weapons Physics Directorate.3 Mason’s letter is the first time anyone said it to us directly.
This is a secured federal site. Controlled access, cameras, on-site security personnel, coordination with local, state and federal partners. All normal for a facility like this. Also a description of something quite different from a university research building, going up next to houses.
Los Alamos calls this expanding its own presence in Michigan. Not supporting the University’s research — expanding the Laboratory’s footprint, with the region’s benefit flowing from that. Hold that thought.
What isn’t in it
Here’s what I noticed reading it a second time.
There isn’t a single number in the whole thing.
Not one figure for electricity, water, jobs, cost, or acreage. It’s a careful, detailed answer to a question about nuclear materials — and almost nobody with a technical background was asking that question. These are the ones we’ve been asking, over and over, for more than a year:
- How many megawatts, and is the substation sized for more?
- How many gallons of water a day?
- Who pays for the grid infrastructure — the facility, or every DTE ratepayer?
- How many of the permanent jobs are actually located in this township?
- What does a tax-exempt facility contribute toward the police and fire it’ll need?
- Which of these commitments is legally binding, and through what instrument?
The letter touches none of them. That’s not an accusation — the Director of a national laboratory isn’t the right person to answer a question about YCUA water capacity. But it means that after a personally signed letter from the head of Los Alamos, a mailer to every household, and a three-hour town hall, this community doesn’t have a single operating number it didn’t have a year ago.
The economic claim, again
The letter argues national laboratories act as anchors for research and innovation, attracting scientists, technology companies, research partners, suppliers, investment.
I’ve asked this before and I’ll keep asking: name one. One comparable computing facility anywhere in the United States that produced a measurable business cluster in its host municipality — not its region, not its state. Los Alamos is better placed than anyone to answer, because it operates facilities like this. If there’s a good example I’d honestly like to know about it, and I’ll publish it here.
Who wrote this letter
This is the part I’d ask you to sit with.
The letter defending this project to Ypsilanti Township residents was written by the Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory — a facility managed by Triad National Security, LLC for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. Not by the University. And in it, the Laboratory describes the project as expanding its presence in Michigan.
Which lines up with what the University told the State in December 2024: 100 megawatts of capacity for Los Alamos, and a separate 10-megawatt academic center for non-classified research.2 Roughly 91% federal. The University’s own FAQ describes a 240,000 square foot federal building including classified research, against a 50,000 square foot academic one.4
Ypsilanti Township has no zoning authority over any of this. The only reason is Article VIII, Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution, which gives the Regents general supervision of the University’s institution — an autonomy written to keep politics out of academic decisions.
When the head of a federal national security laboratory writes to township residents about a facility that’s 91% his laboratory’s, describing it as expanding his laboratory’s presence, the question sort of asks itself:
Whose institution is this?
I’ve never suggested Los Alamos shouldn’t do its work, or that this research isn’t valuable. My objection has always been narrower and it hasn’t changed: a project this size is being put into a community that was given no vote, on the strength of an exemption written for something else.
An offer
Director Mason writes that a project of this scale raises important questions for the people who live near it. He’s right, and I appreciate him saying so.
So here’s the offer. Publish the numbers. Substation design rating and total interconnection request. Projected consumptive water use in gallons per day. Generator count, rating, and on-site fuel storage volume. How many permanent positions will have a duty station in Ypsilanti Township. What the facility will pay toward police and fire.
Every one of those exists in a design document or a budget somewhere. None of them is classified. Publishing them would do more for this community than any letter.
And if I’ve characterized anything here unfairly, write to me. I’ll correct it and say that I did.
Sources
- Letter from Thom Mason, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory, to the Ypsilanti Township community, distributed in print at the September 9, 2026 town hall and published September 10. The University Record
- MEDC memorandum to the Michigan Strategic Fund Board, December 10, 2024. Board packet (PDF)
- Non-disclosure agreement RSNDA-23-0076, Triad National Security and the Regents, March 2023 (PDF)
- University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Research, LANL FAQ. research.umich.edu
The full documentary record is on our timeline and sources pages.
