A messaging memorandum marked "CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM," dated September 14, 2026, from Tony Fabrizio of the Republican polling firm Fabrizio Lee, addressed "To: GOP Candidates & Policymakers." It argues that unqualified support for building more AI data centers is an electoral liability, citing survey results by voter group, and recommends that candidates instead support AI infrastructure only on enforceable conditions: that developers pay for the power they consume, that ratepayers are protected from higher bills, and that local water and environmental resources are safeguarded. It closes with a section stating what its survey does not show. The memorandum was posted on DocumentCloud and linked by WIRED on September 20, 2026 (Source: wired.com).
The memorandum is a position document written for candidates. Its survey figures are the firm's own reported results and its recommendations are attributed to Fabrizio, not stated here as findings.
Summary of the argument
The problem
The memorandum opens: "Unqualified support for building more AI data centers is a losing position." It reports that voters oppose additional construction by 41 points, 65% opposed to 24% in favor, and that intensity runs the same way, with 44% strongly opposed against 9% strongly in favor. It states that opposition "crosses every line," reporting net support of −4 among Republicans, −49 among independents, −73 among Democrats, −41 among generic-ballot undecided voters and −43 among 2024 Trump voters not currently voting Republican.
It identifies the dangerous line of attack as one about household cost rather than artificial intelligence: power consumption, higher rates for families and small businesses, a strained grid, scarce water, and communities absorbing costs while large technology companies keep the benefit. Arguments from innovation, investment, competitiveness and jobs "do not answer it," the memorandum states, "because none establishes who pays."
The opening
The memorandum reports that, asked to choose among three options, 61% chose construction with protections, 28% an outright ban and 7% allowing data centers wherever local officials approve. The three shares sum to 96%; the memorandum does not report the remainder. The tested conditions required the company to meet its own electricity needs, protect ratepayers from higher bills, and protect nearby water and environmental resources.
| Voter group | Net support for build w/ no conditions | Allow with conditions | Prohibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| All registered voters | −41 | 61% | 28% |
| Republicans | −4 | 66% | 20% |
| Independents | −49 | 62% | 27% |
| Democrats | −73 | 55% | 37% |
| Generic-ballot undecideds | −41 | 52% | 36% |
| Persuadable independents | −45 | 62% | 27% |
| 2024 Trump voters not voting GOP | −43 | 65% | 28% |
The memorandum concludes from the table that conditional construction is the majority position in every group tested and that opposition concerns "the terms on which data centers get built—not an immovable objection to their existence." The table's first row identifies the population as registered voters; the memorandum does not define "persuadable independents."
The recommended position
The memorandum proposes a formulation for candidates: "Build the AI infrastructure America needs—but only when the companies building it pay their own way, provide the power they consume, protect families from higher utility bills, and safeguard local water and natural resources." It notes that the formulation avoids the phrase "build data centers," which it says "can be clipped and put in an attack ad." Four elements follow:
- Support for American AI leadership is never to be stated alone; every statement of support is to be paired with the conditions.
- Developers provide or pay for the power they consume, described as a requirement to finance the generation, transmission, interconnection and storage capacity attributable to their projects rather than a promise of isolated grids.
- Ratepayer protection: no project approved unless regulators can demonstrate that ordinary customers will not subsidize its electricity or infrastructure costs, enforced through rate proceedings, special rate classes, development agreements, cost allocations or bonds.
- Local water and environment: disclosed water consumption, enforceable usage limits, developer-funded water infrastructure, recycling or alternative cooling where feasible, and independent assessment of effects on water, wastewater, noise, generator emissions, land use and nearby homes. Candidates are advised never to claim a project has no impact but to claim impacts are "measured in advance, mitigated, and paid for by the developer."
The memorandum states that this recasts the candidate "as the one imposing discipline on the world's wealthiest companies," leaving an opponent to argue either for building without protections or for blocking projects that meet them.
Enforceability
Under the heading "Why 'enforceable' is the whole argument," the memorandum lists minimum elements so that conditions cannot be dismissed as voluntary industry promises: independent demand estimates before approval; public disclosure of projected infrastructure costs; binding agreements assigning those costs to the developer; rate protections against cost-shifting; bonds or guarantees covering promised improvements; continuing compliance reporting; meaningful penalties; authority to suspend operation or expansion for material noncompliance; and local participation in negotiating protections.
The script and what to avoid
The recommended sequence is to validate voters' concerns about utility bills, grid strain and water; to draw a line against any project that forces families to subsidize it or lets a technology company damage the surrounding community; and then to support building where a company pays for its power and infrastructure, protects ratepayers and water, and "accepts legally enforceable accountability," closing with building "rather than surrender the future of artificial intelligence to China."
Candidates are advised to avoid generic support for "more data centers"; leading with jobs, investment or China; treating local concerns as uninformed; treating local approval or voluntary commitments as sufficient; promising zero impact; letting the debate become "build-anything versus ban-everything"; and defending a specific project before its costs and resource demands are known. The memorandum states: "Only 7% of voters accept 'local officials should decide'—process is not a substitute for protection."
Stated limits
The closing section, "What the data do not show," states that the survey establishes that conditional development is "far more acceptable than unrestricted development" but does not test whether the position moves vote share; that the three conditions were tested as a package, "so their independent effects are unknown"; and that the contrast "does not guarantee the issue disappears." It describes conditions as giving "a pro-build candidate the strongest available ground from which to contest it."
Undisclosed survey details
The memorandum cites its figures to footnote markers [1] through [5], which have no accompanying notes in the document as published. It does not name the survey's sponsor, the organization that fielded it, its field dates, sample size, mode, margin of error or question wording. The figures therefore cannot be reconciled with the public polls of the same period recorded at Data Center Siting / AI Power Politics, and are recorded here as the memorandum reports them.
Relation to the NRSC memorandum
The memorandum does not refer to the National Republican Senatorial Committee's August 18, 2026 memorandum on data-center risk in the Ohio Senate race (NRSC — Ohio Data Center Risk (memorandum, August 18, 2026)). Coverage placed the two documents in sequence: WIRED reported the NRSC memorandum in August and Fabrizio's memorandum "last week" in consecutive sentences (Source: wired.com), and a September 20 morning digest described Fabrizio's memorandum as "following" the NRSC document (Source: New Developments Log/2026-09-20-0805-ai-developments.md). That ordering is the coverage's, not the memorandum's.
The two documents address different audiences and propose different conditions. The NRSC memorandum is addressed to interested parties, assigns the persuasion task to "the companies that need these projects built," and advocates building only in communities that approve projects "by a local vote of the people" and that pay for their own power, water and other utilities (NRSC — Ohio Data Center Risk (memorandum, August 18, 2026)). Fabrizio's memorandum is addressed to candidates and policymakers, proposes three conditions (power, ratepayer protection, water and environment) with enforcement mechanisms, and advises against treating local approval as sufficient, citing the 7% of respondents who chose construction wherever local officials approve. The tested local-approval option concerned approval by local officials, not a local popular vote. Both frame the question as who pays, and both invoke competition with China.
Key claims
| Claim | Basis given | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Voters oppose more data-center construction 65% to 24% (net −41), with 44% strongly opposed | Unattributed survey; no field dates, sample or wording | Low as a level; directionally consistent with public polls of 2026 showing majority local opposition (see Data Center Siting / AI Power Politics) |
| 61% prefer construction with conditions, 28% a ban, 7% local officials' approval | Same survey; three conditions tested as a package | Low — unverifiable instrument; the memorandum itself states the conditions' separate effects are unknown |
| Conditional construction is the majority position in every group tested | Same survey's crosstabs | Low — subgroup sizes not stated |
| A conditions-first position is the candidate's "strongest available ground" | Argument; the memorandum states vote-share effects were not tested | Position, not finding |
Coverage
WIRED's Molly Taft reported on September 20, 2026 that "GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio issued a memo to the party's candidates" the previous week, quoting its opening sentence and linking the DocumentCloud copy. The article did not report the memorandum's survey figures, its recommended conditions or its stated limits, and set it against President Donald Trump's continued defense of data centers (Source: wired.com).
Provenance
Retrieved September 21, 2026 from the DocumentCloud text layer for document 28624377, the copy WIRED linked, and transcribed in full to Raw Sources/, from the "CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM" header through the closing section. DocumentCloud is a secondary host; a confidential client memorandum has no primary publisher, and Fabrizio Lee has not published it on its own site. The letterhead names Tony Fabrizio and Fabrizio Lee and the date matches the circulation week WIRED reported. No distribution list or recipient names appear beyond "GOP Candidates & Policymakers."
Relationships
- supports: Data Center Siting / AI Power Politics — party-aligned polling advice treating unconditional support for data centers as an electoral liability
- related: Tony Fabrizio — the author
- related: NRSC — Ohio Data Center Risk (memorandum, August 18, 2026), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) — the earlier party-committee memorandum on the same issue, which this document does not reference
- related: AI in Elections and Democratic Institutions — AI infrastructure as a campaign subject
- related: Behind-the-Meter Power for Data Centers — the developer-pays-for-power condition
- related: Public Opinion on AI — survey evidence on data-center opposition