WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. 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.
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, reliable and resilient power generation, the New York Democrat said.
The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. 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.
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.
California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity within a few years. 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.”
McDermott reported from Providence, R.I.
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
FILE - U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll speaks at the America 250 celebration at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, N.C., June 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Karl DeBlaker, File)
FILE - Members of the Army military stand behind a new sign at Fort Benning during a ceremony, April 16, 2025, in Fort Benning, Ga. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)
FILE - A sign at Fort Bragg, N.C., is seen, Jan. 4, 2020. (AP Photo/Chris Seward, File)
TORONTO (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump says his country does not need Canada. But every day, roughly 4 million barrels of Canadian crude oil flow south, helping fuel American cars, trucks and airplanes and supply U.S. industry.
And oil is only the beginning.
Canada also supplies aluminum, potash to U.S. farms and parts for an auto industry built on both sides of the border.
“WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!” Trump posted this week, repeating his long-running claim.
Yet Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on Canadian aluminum while acknowledging this week that the United States badly needs the metal.
“This country desperately needs aluminum,” Trump said. “We don’t have it. We get it all from Canada for the most part, and we need it badly.”
The contradiction underscores how deeply the two economies remain intertwined — and how much could be at stake if Trump’s trade war reaches more of the energy, materials and supply chains that the U.S. still relies on Canada to provide.
Canada is the United States’ second-largest trading partner after Mexico and energy is at the heart of that relationship.
The two countries exchanged about $872 billion in goods and services last year. Canadian crude imports equal nearly 20% of total U.S. petroleum consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy.
Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University, said Trump’s claim that the United States does not need Canada is “absolutely false,” citing U.S. reliance on Canadian oil and natural gas and deeply integrated industries such as autos.
Much of Canada’s crude flows to Midwest refineries built to process its heavy oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
Energy also explains much of the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, which Trump frequently cites as evidence of an unfair relationship.
The White House this week portrayed the relationship in starkly negative terms, saying Canada had taken roughly $50 billion a year from the United States over the past decade. Much of that gap reflects U.S. purchases of Canadian energy, which helps power the U.S. economy. And Canada's heavy crude typically trades at a discount to U.S. benchmark oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Energy more than accounted for last year’s $48.3 billion goods deficit. Without energy, the United States would have run a trade surplus.
After trade talks collapsed last Friday, the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on about $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. The measures cover only about 5% of Canadian exports to the United States and exclude energy.
For now, using oil as a weapon in trade negotiations remains a remote possibility. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith opposes restricting energy exports, arguing that doing so would hurt her province.
But former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said Canada should not rule out export taxes on oil, fuel or potash if Trump escalates further.
Such retaliation “would affect Republicans who drive F-150s and lay fertilizer on their farm fields,” Kenney said.
“They should be mindful that if they really want to escalate, it will not end well for the American economy two months before midterm elections,” he said.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford cited Canadian commodities as leverage, accusing Trump of “putting out fake news” about the United States not needing Canada. He called potash used by U.S. farmers “one of the most powerful tools we have” and said Washington would have to turn to suppliers such as Russia if Canada redirected shipments.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe rejected that approach, saying his province “cannot and will not support” export tariffs on resources. He said Saskatchewan is on track to supply about half the world’s potash and warned that taxing exports could cost Canadian jobs, raise fertilizer prices and push U.S. buyers toward suppliers such as Belarus.
“This would be a tremendously flawed policy on behalf of Canadians,” Moe said.
Moe has backed a more targeted retaliation, saying Saskatchewan will impose a 50% reciprocal charge on U.S. alcohol beginning Sept. 8 after initially being one of only two provinces that kept American alcohol on store shelves.
Kenney stopped short of advocating an export tax on oil, and Béland said such a move would probably be “a very divisive issue politically in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan.”
That underscores the limits of Canada’s leverage: measures aimed at hurting U.S. industries could also hurt Canadian producers and strain political unity at home.
Canada has long been the dominant foreign source of aluminum for the United States. Smelting the metal requires enormous amounts of electricity, giving hydro-rich Canada a major advantage.
Prime Minister Mark Carney told a New York business audience in May that Canadian aluminum exports to the U.S. are “the energy equivalent of 10 Hoover dams.”
American farmers are even more dependent on Canada for potash, a fertilizer essential to crops such as corn and soybeans. More than 80% of U.S. potash imports come from Canada.
Even Trump’s ambassador has disputed the idea that the United States needs nothing from its neighbor.
“America has a tremendous amount of things where we have a need,” Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said in June. Pointing to Canadian fertilizer supplies, he added: “We need potash.”
Then there are cars.
Canada and the United States have built an integrated auto industry in which parts can cross the border up to six times before final assembly, according to the Canadian government.
Trump said Monday that his administration would impose 50% tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts starting Jan. 1, 2027 — after the November midterm elections.
That means a tariff aimed at Canada can land in Michigan or Ohio. Tax Canadian aluminum and an American automaker may pay more for metal. Tax Canadian parts and the cost of assembling an American vehicle can rise.
Artificial intelligence is driving a surge in electricity demand. Canada supplied 85% of U.S. electricity imports in 2023, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, and Carney says the country needs to double the capacity of its electricity grid by 2050 through major hydroelectric and nuclear projects.
Carney said Canada could help the United States “meet exploding demand to power AI."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, center, speaks at the Davie shipyard in Levis, Quebec on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026. Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, left, Quebec Premier Christine Frechette, and Quebec Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy and Minister Responsible for Maritime Strategy Bernard Drainville look on. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP)
FILE - The oil tanker Palanca Rio passes by Cape Elizabeth, Maine, on April 2, 2025, after a two-day voyage from St. John, New Brunswick, Canada. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)
FILE - Workers prepare extruded aluminum product for packaging at Magna Aluminum Profile's fully electric powered extrusion facility in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec, Canada, on Sept. 3, 2025. (Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press via AP, File)
