Defense-driven innovation has repeatedly reshaped the American economy. Advanced nuclear and other mission-critical technologies could become the next major breakthrough.

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) investments in mission-critical technologies have helped catalyze some of America’s largest technological breakthroughs, with significant positive spillovers for the economy. The internet, GPS, and the modern semiconductor industry all trace back to defense agencies developing tools to meet specific national security needs. The Navy’s nuclear propulsion program for submarines and surface ships transformed what military operations could achieve, and that success became the foundation for the commercial civilian nuclear industry.

The Pentagon could play a similar role across a wide range of innovative energy technologies, from next-generation nuclear and geothermal power to long-duration storage. The benefits won’t be limited to a more energy-secure, resilient national defense. It could meaningfully catalyze the deployment of affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy for American households and businesses. 

Defense Energy Demand Can Accelerate Advanced Nuclear Deployment 

The Department of Defense can help accelerate energy innovation in several ways. One is through the department’s own energy use. DOD set a target of 99.9 percent power availability for critical missions by 2030, meaning just under nine hours of downtime per year. As the federal government’s largest energy consumer, accounting for roughly three-quarters of all federal energy use, DOD’s investments in resilience could help develop first-of-a-kind technologies. 

With the highest capacity factor of any energy source at 92.3 percent, nuclear energy could help achieve DOD’s target. A clear priority for the administration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May 2025 directing the DOD to deploy advanced nuclear reactor technology for national security. 

Out of that came the Army’s Janus Program, which identified nine candidate bases in late 2025 and aims to have an operating, Army-regulated reactor in the United States by September 2028. In April, the Air Force named potential sites (Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado and Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana) and selected three companies (Westinghouse, Radiant, and Antares Nuclear) to build and operate the reactors. One of those designs, Antares’ Mark-0, achieved its first fueled criticality at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in June 2026. This marks the first step in demonstrating that the reactor is safe and operational. 

Project Pele is another notable effort. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Defense Department has spent the past several years demonstrating that a small, factory-built reactor can be designed, licensed, transported, and operated safely outside a traditional nuclear power plant. The purpose of these initiatives has not been to promote one technology over another but about resilience: a reactor small enough to be trucked, shipped, or flown to forward and domestic bases, generating at least 1.5 megawatts of continuous power, fitting inside a standard 20-foot shipping container, and running for up to three years without refueling. 

The microreactor offers several advantages. It provides power that doesn’t depend on a vulnerable grid, reducing the need for fuel convoys and storage facilities for bases that rely on diesel. Microgrids can also give the military greater flexibility by enabling operations across a broader range of locations. The program has already delivered a full reactor core’s worth of TRi-structural ISOtropic particle (TRISO) fuel to Idaho National Laboratory and is targeting formal system testing in 2027 and electricity production in 2028.

A separate, equally important demonstration happened in February, when the Pentagon and DOE airlifted a 5-megawatt microreactor nearly 700 miles by C-17 from a base in California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Built by Valar Atomics, a private nuclear startup, under DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program, it was a real test of how quickly a reactor could be moved and stood up on a base. Valar aims to sell power on a test basis in 2027 and go fully commercial by 2028. 

Defense Energy Investments Can Lower Costs and Strengthen US Energy Innovation 

Whether these programs translate into widescale deployment of advanced reactors in the United States remains to be seen. Building first-of-a-kind technologies can flatten cost curves, build out the specialized workforce, and leverage the same supply chains to achieve economies of scale. At the Vogtle power plants in Georgia, for instance, costs ballooned to $30 billion, $17 billion over budget, because of an incomplete design, fractured supply chains, and an inexperienced workforce. However, costs declined by 30 percent from the third unit to the fourth as the labor force and supply chains were built up. 

Another potential benefit is a more efficient regulatory and permitting process. A rule proposed by the NRC in April would allow the commission to rely on prior federal safety evaluations, test data, and operational experience from DOE or defense authorities, rather than requiring the NRC to conduct a full, independent technical review of design elements already vetted by another federal agency. Leveraging previously authorized DOE/DOD reviews can shorten design reviews by months or up to a year and reduce non-recurring engineering costs. This eliminates duplication, lowers capital costs, and accelerates time-to-market for validated designs.

Nuclear isn’t the only technology that can benefit from government spending on energy technologies. Alternative technologies offer advantages that enhance mission capabilities. Lighter, more efficient batteries extend a foot soldier’s mission duration and reduce the weight of a soldier’s backpack. Solar photovoltaics can also lighten a soldier’s load and extend a drone’s range. More fuel-efficient engines and battery-powered vehicles reduce the need for refueling. Whether it is conventional fuels, renewables, or nuclear power, energy spending should be mission-driven first.

In fact, many government projects that have become commercial successes, such as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS, were not initially intended to meet commercial demand but were developed to meet national security needs. Entrepreneurs recognized the commercial potential of these defense-funded technologies and turned them into the everyday products we rely on today. The government’s role should be to enable efficient pathways for the private sector to spin these programs into commercial ventures when opportunities arise. 

Critically, the DOD must weigh trade-offs when choosing among energy sources and technologies. Officials should decide whether to use more expensive energy if they believe the national security benefits justify the higher costs. Politicizing energy choices or imposing costly mandates leaves the DOD worse off by diverting defense dollars from more valuable uses. 

However, if investments are channeled correctly, the federal government’s energy programs can bolster national security and help usher in new technologies that benefit consumers, the economy, and the environment. 

About the Author: Nick Loris

Nick Loris is the president of the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions) and an energy fellow at the Abundance Institute. He serves as a senior fellow at the National Taxpayers Union and sits on the boards of the American Power Play Institute and the Energy Infrastructure Alliance Forum. Loris has testified before Congress on energy, climate, and environmental issues and has been published and quoted in major newspapers. He holds a master’s degree in economics from George Mason University and a bachelor’s degree in economics, finance, and political science from Albright College.

The post Mission Critical Energy Investments Can Be a Boon for American Energy Dominance appeared first on The National Interest.