In a nation still reckoning with the promises and perils of the atom, the United States Army has committed $2.2 billion to plant small nuclear reactors at five of its major installations by 2028, seeking to free its bases from the vulnerabilities of the civilian power grid. The program, named Janus after the two-faced god of beginnings and transitions, reflects a deeper wager: that military necessity can do what the market has not yet managed — prove that compact nuclear power is viable. Whether it succeeds or stumbles, this experiment will likely determine whether microreactor technology find
US Army awards $2.2B to deploy nuclear microreactors at five military bases by 2028
Building energy resilience to project combat power without relying on vulnerable grids
Mark
Why is the Army suddenly interested in nuclear power on its bases? Isn't that a new kind of risk to take on?
Mimi
The Army sees it as reducing a different kind of risk—dependence on the civilian power grid. If an external grid fails or is attacked, a base with its own reactor can keep operating. That's the logic.
Mark
But five companies are building these things, and they're all different designs, right? How does the Army manage that complexity?
Mimi
Each company has its own reactor design, yes. The Army is betting that by funding five different approaches, at least some will work. It's a portfolio strategy. But it also means five different operational challenges.
Mark
I noticed the Army regulates these reactors, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of interest?
Mimi
That's what critics are asking. The NRC is independent. The Army has an incentive to make the program succeed. Whether that matters in practice depends on how seriously the Army takes safety—and whether Congress or the public demands independent oversight.
Mark
What happens to the nuclear waste?
Mimi
The Army says it won't stay on base. The Department of Energy will remove it. But that's a promise about the future. Right now, there's no permanent disposal site for high-level nuclear waste in the U.S., so it's unclear where it actually goes.
Mark
Is this really about energy independence, or is it about subsidizing companies that can't sell reactors anywhere else?
Mimi
Probably both. The Army genuinely wants reliable power. But yes, these companies have struggled to find commercial customers. The military contract gives them a foothold and a chance to prove the technology works at scale. Whether that's a good use of $2.2 billion is the real question.
Il Polso
- The Pentagon is spending $2.2 billion to deploy microreactors at Fort Bragg, Campbell, Hood, Benning, and Drum — a scale of nuclear commitment the U.S. military has not attempted in decades.
- The urgency is strategic: military officials warn that dependence on civilian power grids leaves bases exposed to disruption, attack, or cascading failure in a conflict.
- Critics are pushing back hard, arguing the program is a taxpayer-funded lifeline for reactor companies whose designs have no commercial buyers and whose safety record remains unproven.
- A regulatory fault line runs through the program — these reactors will be overseen by the Army itself, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, raising accountability concerns among watchdog groups.
- The first reactor must be operational by September 2028, and the outcome will either accelerate or stall the Trump administration's sweeping ambition to quadruple U.S. nuclear energy output.
In a nation still reckoning with the promises and perils of the atom, the United States Army has committed $2.2 billion to plant small nuclear reactors at five of its major installations by 2028, seeking to free its bases from the vulnerabilities of the civilian power grid. The program, named Janus after the two-faced god of beginnings and transitions, reflects a deeper wager: that military necessity can do what the market has not yet managed — prove that compact nuclear power is viable. Whether it succeeds or stumbles, this experiment will likely determine whether microreactor technology finds its way into the broader American energy story.
The U.S. Army announced this week it will spend $2.2 billion to build and operate small nuclear reactors at five military bases under a program called Janus, with the first unit expected online by September 2028. Five defense contractors — Antares Nuclear, BWXT Advanced Technologies, General Atomics, Radiant Industries, and Westinghouse Government Services — have each been assigned to one installation, from Fort Bragg in North Carolina to Fort Drum in New York. Each reactor can generate up to 20 megawatts, enough to power a base independently of the civilian grid.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll framed the initiative as essential to combat readiness, arguing that reliance on external power infrastructure is a strategic vulnerability. Beyond military use, officials acknowledged a commercial ambition: the program is designed to help prove out microreactor technology for future customers like data centers. Radioactive waste will not remain on base — the Department of Energy will handle removal, and five states have already volunteered to accept nuclear materials in exchange for federal infrastructure support.
The program has drawn pointed criticism. Analysts like University of Texas professor Alan Kuperman argue the Army's spending is effectively a subsidy for reactor companies that cannot attract private customers, propping up technology that remains economically unproven. Safety advocates note that nuclear power carries risks — accidents, targeted strikes, long-term waste — that other clean energy sources do not. The reactors will be regulated by the Army rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a jurisdictional arrangement that has raised oversight concerns.
Janus sits inside a broader Trump administration push to revive American nuclear energy, including executive orders signed in May 2025 calling for the country to quadruple its nuclear output. With only two large reactors built from scratch in the U.S. over the past half-century — both late and over budget — the microreactor path is being watched as either a credible shortcut or a costly detour. Industry executives like BWXT's Rex Geveden call it 'the nation's most credible path to deployable nuclear power.' Whether the program delivers on that claim will shape the arc of American nuclear energy for years to come.
The United States Army announced this week that it will spend $2.2 billion to build and operate small nuclear reactors at five military installations across the country. The first reactor is scheduled to begin operation by the end of September 2028. The program, called Janus, represents a significant bet by the Pentagon on a technology that its developers say can be transported relatively easily and generate up to 20 megawatts of power per unit—enough to power a military base independently from the civilian electrical grid.
Five defense contractors have been selected to build and operate these microreactors. Antares Nuclear will work at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. BWXT Advanced Technologies is assigned to Fort Campbell in Kentucky. General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems will deploy a reactor at Fort Hood in Texas. Radiant Industries will build one at Fort Benning in Georgia. Westinghouse Government Services will handle the installation at Fort Drum in New York. The Army's stated goal is to ensure that its bases can operate without relying on external power grids, which military officials argue could be vulnerable to disruption or attack.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll framed the initiative as essential to military readiness. The reactors would provide what he called "safe, reliable baseload power" directly to military installations, allowing the armed forces to "project combat power globally" without dependence on potentially fragile civilian infrastructure. Jeff Waksman, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, emphasized that the program aims ultimately to create a commercial product—one that could eventually serve customers beyond the military, such as data centers, which are increasingly hungry for reliable power sources.
The microreactors will be subject to all environmental and safety regulations that apply to commercial nuclear plants, but with a crucial difference: they will be regulated by the Army itself rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees civilian nuclear power. This regulatory arrangement has drawn scrutiny from critics who worry about oversight and accountability. The Army has stated that radioactive waste from the reactors will not be stored long-term on military installations; instead, the Department of Energy will handle removal and disposal. Last month, five states offered to accept nuclear waste in exchange for federal support in developing nuclear energy infrastructure.
Critics argue that the military program amounts to a hidden subsidy for nuclear technology that cannot yet compete in the private sector. Alan J. Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, told the Associated Press that the Army's "deep pockets" are being used to support reactor companies that lack commercial customers for their unproven and economically unviable designs. Safety advocates have raised concerns about the inherent risks of nuclear technology—the possibility of accidents, targeted attacks, and the long-term challenge of managing radioactive materials—risks they say other low-carbon energy sources do not carry.
Waksman acknowledged that microreactors will not be cheaper than conventional nuclear plants, at least not initially. The Janus program, he explained, is designed to explore how costs might eventually be reduced. Mike Starrett, the chief commercial officer of Radiant Industries, told Reuters that the military contract will help his company scale up to serve commercial customers around 2030. Rex Geveden, president and chief executive officer of BWXT, described the program as "the nation's most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power."
The Army's nuclear initiative sits within a broader Trump administration push to expand nuclear energy production in the United States. In May 2025, President Trump signed executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear development and called for the nation to quadruple its nuclear energy output. Currently, the country's 94 nuclear reactors supply about 19 percent of U.S. electricity, compared to roughly 60 percent from fossil fuels and 21 percent from renewables, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Only two large reactors have been built from scratch in the United States in nearly 50 years, and both were completed years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
The success or failure of the Janus program could shape the trajectory of microreactor technology in America. If the military deployments prove reliable and cost-effective, the technology could accelerate adoption in the commercial sector. If they encounter problems—whether technical, financial, or regulatory—the setback could slow the broader nuclear expansion that the Trump administration is pursuing.
Citazioni salienti
The whole idea here is that at the back end of this we want a commercial product.— Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment
The Army's deep pockets are providing a hidden subsidy to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their uneconomical reactors.— Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Deutsche Welle ↗
Politics & Governance