Nuclear News

Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

Fort Hood and Army leaders look at a possible site for a new microreactor. Photo courtesy of U.S. Army/Fort Hood Media Center

The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

“That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

“That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

Trending News

A View From HETI

Chevron is the only U.S. oil company with a major presence in Venezuela. Getty Images

Oil giant Chevron confirmed that it will expand operations in Venezuela after President Donald Trump announced an ambitious deal to develop the nation’s oil reserves and give the Pentagon a stake in the profits.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil company with a major presence in Venezuela, said Wednesday that it has been assigned additional acreage in the Orinoco Belt, where it has active operations. The company plans to invest more than $7 billion over the next five years, with the goal of more than doubling its current production to about 600,000 barrels a day.

“Chevron’s history in Venezuela spans more than a century, and our expanded position reflects our confidence in the country’s deep resource potential,” CEO Mike Wirth said in a prepared statement.

Venezuela holds the world's largest proven reserves, totaling more than 303 billion barrels of crude oil, according to OPEC's 2025 Annual Statistical Bulletin. Saudi Arabia is a distant second with 267 billion barrels.

Yet because Venezuela's energy infrastructure is severely degraded and the nation is operating under international sanctions, its daily production is just over 1 million barrels, compared with the 10 million to 11 million barrels that Saudi Arabia produces each day. The U.S. produces almost 14 million barrels per day.

Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, has had a presence in Venezuela since 1923.

“President Trump’s mission in Venezuela is straightforward. The mission is to bring peace, freedom, opportunity and prosperity to the people of Venezuela,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday in Caracas, Venezuela. “I believe the deals that are signed today – tens of billions of dollars of investment, ultimately many thousands of jobs – are critical in starting this ball rolling of peace, opportunity and prosperity for everyone in Venezuela.”

The White House confirmed Monday that it is partnering with North American Blue Energy Partners, NABEP, as part of Trump ’s push to tap into Venezuela’s oil industry.

Yet the agreement has been met with skepticism from energy experts who say it will take years to revive Venezuela’s oil industry, which is in disarray after years of neglect.

There are also questions about whether Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, has the authority to give NABEP 100-year rights over 17 oil fields with reserves of 65 billion barrels — and whether future Venezuelan or American administrations would overturn the agreement.

Venezuela's constitution states that arrangements like the one that the United States announced this week must be approved by the National Assembly, which has not happened, wrote Ian Vásquez, vice president for international studies at the Cato Institute.

“The deal lacks legitimacy since it was agreed to with a dictatorship that has clung to power for decades through violence and by committing what was probably the largest electoral fraud in Latin American history in 2024,” Vásquez wrote. “The agreement was also reached under overwhelming pressure, military and otherwise, from the United States. As such, any future Venezuelan democracy will question the deal, thus undermining confidence in the current arrangement.”

Wright on Wednesday told reporters during a joint press conference with Rodríguez pushed back on criticism.

“This is a deal that’s a massive win and benefit for the people of the United States of America and a massive win for the people of Venezuela," he said. "Because what it’s going to do is take resources that are underground, not helping anyone, and invest capital and money and technology and bring them to the surface to better the lives of Venezuelans, better supply energy to Americans.”

Trump has eyed Venezuela’s oil since the January capture of then-President Nicolás Maduro and has pressed to get U.S. businesses back into the country. “We have Exxon going in, we have Chevron going in. We have our big oil companies going in,” he said that same month.

He suggested again on Monday that other U.S. oil majors were preparing for a return, though other than Chevron, there is no evidence of that.

Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said in January that Venezuela was “ uninvestable.” An Exxon spokesman said this week that “nothing has changed.”

The history of U.S. oil majors in Venezuela explains the hesitation.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976 and created the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. A second nationalization occurred in 2007, when President Hugo Chávez pushed foreign oil companies into state-controlled joint ventures and seized the assets of companies that refused. Chevron agreed to a joint venture. Others, including Exxon and ConocoPhillips, refused, and Venezuela took their assets.

Trump has said that the agreement with Venezuela would “substantially lower” gasoline prices in the U.S. However, analyst have repeatedly warned that Venezuela’s dilapidated oil infrastructure will require years of restoration work and tens of billions of dollars to resuscitate.

“It could take 2 to 4 years to get new greenfield facilities online in the Orinoco region,” Amy Jaffe, director of the Global Energy, Climate, and Sustainability Lab at New York University, said in an email. "Other places where there is no pipeline and other kinds of support infrastructure could take longer.”

Meanwhile, the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline jumped overnight to $4.12, according to the motor club AAA. That is 93 cents more than it cost at this point last year.

Trending News