Over on YouTube [Drake] from the [styropyro] channel investigates what happens when you take an enormous tungsten incandescent light bulb and pump 30,000 watts through it.

The answer: it burns bright enough to light up the forest at night, and hot enough to cook food and melt metal. And why on Earth would anybody do such a thing? Well [Drake] said it was because he wanted to outdo [Photonicinduction] who had already put 20,000 watts through a light bulb. Nothing like a little friendly competition to drive… progress?

[Drake] says he has purchased the most powerful incandescent light bulb ever made for commercial production. Rated for 24,000 watts (and operated at 30,000 watts) the enormous filament is made from tungsten. The starting current drawn by a light bulb is higher than the operating current, because the resistance of the filament increases with temperature, so it’s prudent to warm the device slowly. To this end [Drake] builds some custom wiring and dials to power the thing. Once that’s done, it’s off to the forest to play!

If you’re interested in over-the-top lighting shenanigans, you might enjoy reading about The World’s Longest Range LED Flashlight.

The US Department of Energy has approved an $8.6 million grant that will allow the nation’s first utility-led geothermal heating and cooling network to double in size.

Gas and electric utility Eversource Energy completed the first phase of its geothermal network in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 2024. Eversource is a co-recipient of the award along with the city of Framingham and HEET, a Boston-based nonprofit that focuses on geothermal energy and is the lead recipient of the funding.

Geothermal networks are widely considered among the most energy-efficient ways to heat and cool buildings. The federal money will allow Eversource to add approximately 140 new customers to the Framingham network and fund research to monitor the system’s performance.

Read full article

Comments

Nuclear power company TerraPower has passed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s final safety evaluation for a permit to build a reactor in Wyoming. The Washington-based company backed by Bill Gates and NVIDIA could be the first to deploy a utility-scale, next-generation reactor in America.

TerraPower’s Natrium design pairs a small modular reactor (SMR) with an integrated thermal battery. The SMR generates 345 megawatts of continuous electrical power. The thermal battery, which stores excess heat in molten salt, allows the system to surge its output to 500 megawatts for more than five hours, generating enough energy to power 400,000 homes at maximum capacity.

“Today is a momentous occasion for TerraPower, our project partners and the Natrium design,” said company CEO Chris Levesque in a statement issued Monday. The favorable assessment “reflects years of rigorous evaluation, thoughtful collaboration with the NRC, and an unwavering commitment to both safety and innovation.”

The company launched in 2006 and is building on technology used in an experimental breeder reactor in Idaho that operated for nearly 30 years before shutting down.

TerraPower set a goal of producing power at the Kemmerer, Wyo., site by 2030. The reactor is located near a retiring coal plant.

There is tremendous renewed interest in nuclear as tech giants and data center operators scramble for new energy sources to power AI operations. Microsoft, Amazon and others have invested in a combination of existing nuclear plants that can be restarted and construction of new facilities. The Trump administration has pledged to expedite permitting.

“We’ve finished our technical work on the Kemmerer review a month ahead of our already accelerated schedule, as we aim to make licensing decisions for new, advanced reactors in no more than 18 months,” said Jeremy Groom, acting director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

“We thank TerraPower for promptly addressing the agency’s questions to ensure safety and enable the NRC to efficiently process the application,” he added in a statement.

The NRC said there are no safety aspects that would preclude issuing a construction permit for the reactor. TerraPower last year broke ground in Wyoming on non-nuclear components of the facility.

In June the company announced $650 million in new funding from Gates, who helped start TerraPower, as well as the venture arm of chip giant NVIDIA. It previously raised more than $1 billion, including investments from Gates as well as South Korea-based SK Inc. and SK Innovation, according to PitchBook. TerraPower has additionally been awarded roughly $2 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy.

There are still additional permitting hurdles to complete:

• In the coming weeks, the NRC staff will provide a safety evaluation and final environmental impact statement to the Commission for the final phase of the licensing.
• The Commission then determines whether the staff’s review supports the findings required to issue the permit, and votes on whether to direct the staff to issue the permit.
• If the NRC issues the permit, TerraPower will need to submit an operating license application for approval.

Worries about the US grid’s ability to handle the surge in demand due to data center growth have made headlines repeatedly over the course of 2025. And, early in the year, demand for electricity had surged by nearly 5 percent compared to the year prior, suggesting the grid might truly be facing a data center apocalypse. And that rise in demand had a very unfortunate effect: Coal use rose for the first time since its recent collapse began.

But since the first-quarter data was released, demand has steadily eroded. As of yesterday’s data release by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which covers the first nine months of 2025, total electricity demand has risen by 2.3 percent. That slowdown means that most of the increased demand could have been met by the astonishing growth of solar power.

Better than feared

If you look over data on the first quarter of 2025, the numbers are pretty grim, with total demand rising by 4.8 percent compared to the same period in the year prior. While solar power continued its remarkable surge, growing by an astonishing 44 percent, it was only able to cover a third of the demand growth. As a result of that and a drop in natural gas usage, coal use grew by 23 percent.

Read full article

Comments

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Editor’s note: This series profiles six of the Seattle region’s “Uncommon Thinkers”: inventors, scientists, technologists and entrepreneurs transforming industries and driving positive change in the world. They will be recognized Dec. 11 at the GeekWire Gala. Uncommon Thinkers is presented in partnership with Greater Seattle Partners.

BOTHELL, Wash. — Before he became the CEO of Portal Space Systems, Jeff Thornburg worked for two of the world’s most innovative space-minded billionaires. Now he’s working on an idea those billionaires never thought to pursue: building a spacecraft powered by the heat of focused sunlight.

Thornburg and his teammates are aiming to make Bothell-based Portal the first commercial venture to capitalize on solar thermal propulsion, a technology studied decades ago by NASA and the U.S. Air Force. The concept involves sending a propellant through a heat exchanger, where the heat gathered up from sunlight causes it to expand and produce thrust, like steam whistling out of a teakettle.

The technology is more fuel-efficient than traditional chemical propulsion — and faster-acting than solar electric propulsion, which uses solar arrays to turn sunlight into electricity to power an ion drive. Solar thermal propulsion nicely fills a niche between those two methods to move a spacecraft between orbits. But neither NASA nor the Air Force followed up on the concept.

“They didn’t abandon it for technical reasons,” Thornburg said. At the time, it just didn’t make economic or strategic sense to take the concept any further.

What’s changed?

“Lower launch costs, coupled with additive manufacturing, are the major unlocks to bring the tech to life, and make it affordable and in line with commercial development,” Thornburg said.

Thornburg argues that it’s the right time for Portal’s spacecraft to fill a gap in America’s national security posture on the high frontier. “There was no imperative for rapid movement on orbit in the 1990s,” he said. “Only recently have the threats from our adversaries highlighted the weaknesses in current electric propulsion systems, in that they have so little thrust and can’t enable rapid mobility.”

Portal’s vision has attracted interest — and financial support — from investors and potential customers. Since its founding in 2021, the startup has raised more than $20 million in venture capital. In 2024, Portal won a commitment for $45 million in public-private funding from SpaceWERX, the innovation arm of the U.S. Space Force. And next year, Portal is due to demonstrate its hardware for the first time in orbit.

So, how did Thornburg hit upon the idea of turning a decades-old idea into reality?

The path to propulsion

Thornburg, who’s now 52 years old, has focused on making things fly for most of his career. It all started when he was a college student in Missouri in the early 1990s, earning his aerospace engineering degree with an ROTC scholarship from the Air Force. He recalled a conversation he had with an instructor who was an old F-4 fighter pilot.

“With my nearsightedness, I was out of the game from a pilot standpoint,” Thornburg said. “But he said, ‘Thornburg, if you can’t fly the planes, go be as close to them as you can.'”

Thornburg signed up for a program that fast-tracked him into an aircraft maintenance role. He traveled around the world with KC-135 cargo planes, supporting missions that included the NATO-led air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. During his time as a flight commander and aircraft maintenance officer at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, “I had a couple of hundred enlisted people who worked hard to keep me out of trouble,” he said.

The Air Force is where he earned his master’s degree in aerospace engineering. “My adviser had a friend that worked at the Air Force Research Lab,” Thornburg recalled. “He called him and said, ‘The Air Force is about to send this guy to do something with airplanes, but I’m pretty sure he’s going to be disappointed if he can’t come out and work on rocket engines.'”

Sure enough, Thornburg was soon working on rocket propulsion development, including a project to create what’s known as a full-flow staged combustion cycle engine. “We made what people thought was not possible possible with that program,” Thornburg said.

In 2004, Thornburg left the Air Force to work on rocket propulsion systems at Exquadrum, Aerojet and NASA. Then, in 2011, he took a phone call from SpaceX’s billionaire founder, Elon Musk. “We talked for about an hour, hour and a half on the phone — and he said, ‘I’ve got a project I want to talk to you about,'” Thornburg said.

That project led to the development of SpaceX’s methane-fueled Raptor rocket engine, which leveraged the technology that Thornburg helped pioneer at the Air Force. “That was a wild ride, because that felt like about 15 or 20 years of experience in a five-year time period,” he recalled.

After five years at SpaceX, Thornburg needed to wind down. He decided to do some consulting at his home base in Huntsville, Alabama, also known as Rocket City. “About six months in, I’m like, I need a real job again,” he said. “And some friends of mine introduced me to, ultimately, Paul Allen. Paul called me and said, ‘Can you come out to my Seattle office?'”

The Microsoft co-founder and software billionaire enlisted Thornburg to become the head of rocket propulsion development for Stratolaunch, Allen’s space venture. Thornburg led the effort to create a liquid rocket engine known as the PGA — which stood for “Paul G. Allen.”

Unfortunately, Allen passed away in 2018, just one month after the engine was unveiled. Under new ownership, Stratolaunch pivoted to hypersonic testing, and the PGA project fell by the wayside. Once again, Thornburg and his family hunkered down in Huntsville.

Building a business

“I decided to start my first space company after Paul died,” Thornburg said. “I focused on hydrogen propulsion technology and solutions, kind of like what we were working on for Paul.”

That first company, Interstellar Technologies, started working on projects for NASA, Northrop Grumman and a couple of other customers. Then the pandemic hit. “The investors that were about to provide funding disappeared,” Thornburg said. “NASA went home, Northrop Grumman went home. And so I had to find my small team other jobs.”

Just as Thornburg was about to resign himself to riding out the pandemic in Alabama, Amazon’s recruiters called. They asked him to move to Seattle to run engineering and manufacturing for Project Kuiper, the satellite internet project that’s now known as Amazon Leo. “That’s ultimately what got us moved to Seattle,” Thornburg said.

His yearlong stint at Amazon was long enough to establish the process for building Project Kuiper’s two prototypes and the production-grade satellites that came after them. Then he took on engineering management roles at Agility Robotics and Commonwealth Fusion Systems.

That’s when Portal Space Systems took shape.

To be fair, the seeds for Portal were planted back in 2016, just weeks after Thornburg left SpaceX. “Lawrence Livermore Lab had called and said, ‘We’re doing a seminar on the future of propulsion. Would you like to come be a speaker?'” he recalled. “I said, ‘Yes, what do you want me to talk about?’ They said, ‘We want you to tell us what the future of propulsion looks like.’ Oh my gosh, no pressure on that!”

As he did the research for his talk, he came across the idea of putting a nuclear reactor on a spacecraft, and using the concentrated heat from that reactor to blast a propellant through a thruster. The concept, known as nuclear thermal propulsion, seemed like a stretch — but then Thornburg had an uncommon thought.

“Can you concentrate solar energy to heat a thrust chamber and do the same thing?” Thornburg said. “You can. It’s not quite as effective as a nuclear reactor, for obvious reasons, but it’s all the same pieces. … Now I don’t have to wait on a low-cost, low-weight, space-rated nuclear reactor that doesn’t exist yet.”

Thornburg mulled over the idea for years. “I was thinking about Portal, and I was starting the beginnings of Portal in 2021, but I still had to pay the bills,” he said. For a couple of years, he worked during the day at Agility Robotics and Commonwealth Fusion — and spent nights and weekends laying the groundwork for the startup.

“When Portal could really start to stand on its own, as we started to win over the Defense Department, that’s when I made the switch with all of my time focused on what was going on in Portal,” Thornburg said. In April 2024, the startup emerged from stealth and announced it had received more than $3 million in funding from the Defense Department and the Space Force.

The road ahead

Portal’s flagship vehicle is called Supernova. It’s a rapid-transorbital, multi-mission vehicle that should be capable of moving itself and its payloads from one orbit to another — even from low Earth orbit to geostationary Earth orbit, more than 20,000 miles higher up. And it should be able to do that within hours or a day, rather than the weeks or months that are typically required.

The spacecraft itself will be about the size of a restaurant refrigerator. To concentrate sunlight on its heat exchanger and thruster system, Supernova will use sheets of reflective material that can unfold to a width of roughly 55 feet. Ammonia will serve as the propellant. The 3D-printed heat exchanger thruster, dubbed Flare, was successfully tested earlier this year.

Next year’s orbital demonstration will involve putting an instrument package known as Mini-Nova, which is about the size of a tissue box, on a satellite platform that’s due for launch on a SpaceX rideshare mission. The demonstration is meant to validate Supernova’s system design.

In late 2026, Portal plans to send up a free-flying spacecraft called Starburst, which will be equipped with thrusters powered by an electrothermal heating system. Starburst won’t be as powerful as Supernova, but it will provide Portal’s customers with an early option for rapid maneuverability in orbit. If next year’s test goes well, Starburst is expected to start taking on customer missions in 2027.

2027 is also the year when Supernova is scheduled to make its debut. All of the development work for Supernova and Starburst will be taking place at Portal’s 8,000-square-foot lab and 50,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Bothell.

Throughout Portal’s formative years, Thornburg has worked with fellow members of the “small team” he assembled at Interstellar Technologies. Both of Portal’s other co-founders — chief operating officer Ian Vorbach and engineering vice president Prashaanth Ravindran — crossed paths with Thornburg at Interstellar, and at Stratolaunch before that.

Vorbach, whose background includes startup experience as well as engineering experience, said Portal’s business model has been fine-tuned to make sure it addresses the needs of its target market. He and Thornburg identified the U.S. military’s need for tactical responsiveness in space as the top priority.

“What happens a lot in the space industry is that you have incredibly technical, talented people who have a technology that provides some very unique performance, and then they build it, and it turns out that performance isn’t needed,” Vorbach said. “There’s got to be a reason to bring that innovation to market.”

Vorbach is grateful for Thornburg’s leadership. “We work very long hours, but I think Jeff does a great job of making sure people know that they’re valued,” he said. “I appreciate that, and I think it’s why we, fortunately, are able to hire great talent from the places he’s come from, whether it’s SpaceX or Kuiper.”

Ravindran, who worked at Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture before taking a founder’s role at Portal, agreed with that assessment. “It’s always amazing to have someone like Jeff out there, because he’s come up the engineering road to realize our pain points as well, and he doesn’t try to hold us to unfair standards,” he said. “That way, we are not set up for failure.”

Stan Shull, a space industry analyst at Bellevue, Wash.-based Alliance Velocity, gives Portal high marks. “In space terms, a highly maneuverable satellite is said to have high delta-V,” he told GeekWire in an email. “Portal, as a company, feels high delta-V too.”

Thornburg’s experience and expertise are big factors behind Portal’s rapid progress, Shull said. “He’s very knowledgeable about national security issues and is a straight shooter about the growing threat environment in orbit,” he said. “It’s no surprise the Space Force is among the many customers interested in what the company is up to.”

What will Portal be up to next? Looking long-term, Thornburg is intrigued by the quantum frontier. “I think there are some very interesting things happening in our understanding of quantum physics that will have propulsion applications, that won’t look like propulsion as we know it right now,” he said. “If we could fold spacetime in clever ways … there’s been plenty of writing about that.”

But when he takes a more realistic look at what could happen in his lifetime, Thornburg can’t stop thinking about nuclear propulsion. “Our Supernova spacecraft will have a version that will leverage a nuclear reactor at some point. That was always the going-in position,” he said.

The way Thornburg sees it, the nuclear option will revolutionize spacecraft — and expand humanity’s reach on the final frontier while we figure out how to fold spacetime.

“Nuclear thermal will get us further into the solar system, and this Earth-moon-Mars becomes our backyard,” he said. “But, you know, for my 12-year-old version of myself, that’s not enough.”

Meet the finalists for the 2025 MJBowl cannabis competition is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

The Army is taking the next step in its ambitions to start using small nuclear reactors to power critical infrastructure on at least some of its bases. This week, the service started the solicitation process for its Janus program via the Defense Innovation Unit, while also announcing some of the first bases that are most likely to host the new miniature nuclear generators.

Officials want to test the feasibility of using the microreactors to deal with what they say are several problems: frequent electrical outages, increasing power demands, and a limited menu of backup generation alternatives. The Army says it is convinced that the commercial technology behind the latest generation of reactors is viable — the big question is cost.

So this week, through the Defense Innovation Unit’s Commercial Solutions Opening, the Army released a solicitation asking vendors to propose microreactor designs that the service will use to test its resilience goals on nine separate bases between now and 2030.

“What resilience means to us is that we have power no matter what, 24/7, and right now, that resiliency is provided 100% by fossil fuels,” Dr. Jeff Waksman, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, told reporters at the recent Association of the U.S. Army conference in Washington. “With fossil fuels, you have a certain number of days of backup power, but that is a huge vulnerability, particularly if you start to look at like Arctic locations or Pacific locations. So the only technologies that we have now that could be possibly applied to Arctic or Pacific locations to provide 24/7 power for a long length of time is nuclear power. It’s the only option that we have right now.”

Cost considerations

Waksman said the Army is confident the commercial nuclear industry can support the service’s ambitions — and meet a Trump administration goal to have at least one Army-regulated nuclear reactor up and running on a domestic military base by 2028.

For now, the biggest question is cost. And for the time being, officials aren’t even sure exactly how to define the cost-effectiveness of a nuclear option.

“It’s a hard question, and it’s going to eventually be an Army senior leader discussion. And the question is, how much are we willing to pay for resiliency? That’s still an open question, and that’s going to be part of what we’re going to try to figure out here,” he said. “I don’t think we need to meet absolute parity with fossil fuels, but I think we’ve got to be reasonably close. But if you just go out to Hawaii or Alaska, they’re already paying upwards of 40 cents per kilowatt hour. So these reactors don’t need to be 10 or 12 cents a kilowatt hour to be parity. They need to be something like 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour. I think there’s going to be a big market for them. But exactly what the number is, that’s part of what we need to figure out for the next few years.”

Supply chain

But Waksman said there are other reasons for the Army to get involved now, beyond just determining the cost-effectiveness of commercial nuclear technologies.

He said the Army also wants to influence the development of the U.S. nuclear industry. And not necessarily with funding — there’s already plenty of that in private markets, with several companies having raised hundreds of millions of dollars to develop their reactor designs. He said the nuclear industry is already “very hot.”

“Now is the perfect time for the government to get involved, because there are multiple nuclear startups that have now gone public and have market caps of over a billion dollars. The problem is you have a dozen different companies with a dozen different supply chains, and there’s no way that that’s going to actually work — we’re going to have to neck this down,” he said. “For a comparison in aviation, Boeing and Airbus are vehement enemies, but they use a lot of the same supply chain, because having two fully parallel supply chains doesn’t make sense for airplanes. That’s part of the role that we’re going to play here, as these companies are developing their designs, is trying to help squeeze them into similar supply chains … that will not only give more options to these companies, but it also encourages these suppliers to actually expand and make assembly line components, because right now, nuclear reactor components tend to be one-off, custom, handmade components.”

As part of the partnership with DIU, the Army plans to use an iterative prototyping process, via other transaction agreements (OTAs), to test the reactor designs on nine bases, which were also announced this week. They are:

• Fort Benning, Georgia
• Fort Bragg, North Carolina
• Fort Campbell, Kentucky
• Fort Drum, New York
• Fort Hood, Texas
• Fort Wainwright, Alaska
• Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee
• Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
• Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

At each of those sites, the companies selected are expected to start by building a “first of a kind” reactor, then use lessons learned to improve on that commercial design with a “second of a kind.”

Making nuclear “sexy” again

Waksman said there’s a precedent for that kind of government involvement — both in terms of technology and in workforce development. The Army is trying to emulate the model NASA used to spur development of the space industry through its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.

“When NASA wanted to start commercial rocketry, they started at the COTS competition, and that was the competition that basically created SpaceX. SpaceX took an industry where the A students in engineering didn’t want to go into rockets, it wasn’t cool, and SpaceX made it cool again, and suddenly you had all the really smart engineers on campus wanted to get into space and rocketry,” he said. “Nuclear needs its SpaceX. There are these innovative, exciting startups, and we’re hoping to cultivate them in the same way that NASA cultivated SpaceX, make nuclear sexy again, and encourage more of the top young engineering talent to want to go in the field. Because right now, there’s a tremendous shortage.”

The post Army issues solicitation, announces sites for nuclear-powered bases first appeared on Federal News Network.

The number of participants in the cyber and physical grid security exercise increased by nearly 50% compared to two years ago.

The post Over 370 Organizations Take Part in GridEx VIII Grid Security Exercise appeared first on SecurityWeek.

OPINION / EXPERT PERSPECTiVE — According to reports, the Trump administration informed Congress that the ongoing hostilities against alleged narco-terrorist groups does not fall within the scope of the War Powers Resolution (WPR). As a result, the administration does not believe the President’s authority to continue to wage this military campaign is in any way constrained by the law.

Trump is building on an interpretation of the law first advanced by the Obama administration to avoid WPR compliance in relation to the U.S. involvement in the NATO campaign against Libya in 2011. This interpretation posits that the WPR is inapplicable to hostilities that fall below the level of large-scale ‘war’ and involve minimal risk of U.S. casualties. Yet ironically, President Trump’s assertion of inherent constitutional authority to start and continue this military campaign is exactly what the law was intended to cover.

Enacted into law in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the War Powers Resolution was motivated by congressional determination to prevent future presidents dragging the nation into a war incrementally. The context was obvious: Vietnam. For a super-majority of legislators, that conflict began and slowly expanded under the same premise: presidential assertions of inherent constitutional authority to commit small numbers of U.S. armed forces to low-level operations with limited risk: first as advisors, then to engage in limited direct action, then through ‘limited risk’ air operations. What evolved was an escalation that most of these legislators believed was inconsistent with both presidential assurances and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – the statutory use of force authorization Congress enacted in 1965 to empower the President to respond to subsequent North Vietnamese attacks on U.S. assets. From 1964 to 1967, the number of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam had escalated from approximately 25,000 to almost 500,000.

Nothing in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution limited that escalation, and over the years Congress continued to provide presidents with the money and manpower to wage the war. Yet it was a different lesson from that experience that provided the true motivation for the WPR: the undeniable reality that it is far more difficult for Congress to force an end to a war than it is to prevent (or limit it) from inception.

Voting to cut off funding for an ongoing conflict is certainly a tool in the congressional arsenal to check presidential assertions of war power, but in the context of ongoing hostilities it is unrealistic to expect it will be useful. To begin with, restricting existing appropriations would require a veto-proof super-majority in both the House and Senate. But even mustering a simple majority to deny a continuation of appropriations for ongoing hostilities is politically unrealistic as it will be perceived as ‘abandoning’ or ‘betraying’ troops in the field.

The conflict in Southeast Asia proved this. Even after Congress revoked the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it continued to provide fiscal and human resources in support of hostilities. And when service-members asked federal courts to rule that the President lacked constitutional authority to order them to war, judges consistently ruled that this continued support demonstrated joint action by the President and Congress, satisfying the Constitution’s war powers equation. Even when Congress enacted a Bill to cut off all funding for the bombing campaign in support of the Cambodian military’s struggle against the Khmer Rouge, President Nixon’s veto threat and the accordant compromise that extended that funding was enough to lead a federal appeals court to reach the same conclusion. In short, unless Congress could muster a sufficient majority to override a presidential veto and enact law prohibiting continued operations, a president’s unilateral decision to commit the nation to a conflict would effectively put Congress in a straitjacket.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

It was against this background the WPR was enacted. At its foundation is the assertion that the President’s authority to commit “United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances” requires either express statutory authorization (a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force) or “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” As a result, the law includes several essential provisions:

· The President must report any such commitment to congressional leadership within 48 hours.

· Once reported (or when such a report was required), the President has 60 days to persuade Congress to support the operation by enacting express statutory authority.

· If Congress fails to enact such an authorization, the operation must terminate (unless Congress grants the President a 30-day extension to bring the operation to an end).

· Congress may order termination of an operation at any time by concurrent resolution (a majority vote by the Senate and the House with no opportunity for a presidential veto).

· Congressional authorization may not be inferred from any appropriation or other law unless it expressly authorizes the operation.

· Nothing in the WPR – to include the 60-day grace period provision – may be interpreted as a grant of authority to the President to commit U.S. forces to hostilities or imminent hostilities.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.

From inception, presidents (and many experts) have criticized the WPR as self-contradictory, most notably because it also includes a provision that indicates nothing in the law “is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President…” These critics argue the law does just that by unconstitutionally intruding upon the inherent war powers vested in the President and the prerogative of Congress to indicate support for presidential war powers initiatives by implication. And there are other defects. For example, the law omitted the well-established inherent authority of presidents to use military force to rescue U.S. nationals abroad (the Senate version included such a provision but it was removed during conference negotiations). And the provision allowing Congress to order termination of an ongoing military operation by concurrent resolution arguably runs afoul of a subsequent Supreme Court decision invalidating what is known as a legislative veto – use of a concurrent resolution to revoke a delegation of authority to the President enacted by law (although there is a question of whether the WPR concurrent resolution provision falls into that category as it is not withdrawing any prior statutory delegation of authority).

And then there is the so-called 60-day clock, perhaps the most misunderstood and at the same time perplexing provision of the law: misunderstood because it is often asserted as a statutory grant of authority to the President to conduct any military operation for up to 60 days (which contradicts Section 8 of the WPR); perplexing because if it is not a grant of authority, then what exactly did it mean?

The answer to the second question is ironically highlighted by the current counter-narcotic military campaign. Because it may not be interpreted as an express grant of constitutional authority to engage in hostilities (or situations of imminent hostilities), it is best understood as a failsafe – an acknowledgment that presidents will likely initiate combat operations on the belief they are acting pursuant to constitutional authority. If they do so, however, the law requires such an assertion of authority be validated by express congressional endorsement within 60 days. If a President is unable to secure such validation, congressional inaction functions as opposition, requiring termination of the operation.

There are, of course, problems with this equation. First, from a president’s perspective, if he is acting pursuant to valid constitutional authority on day 59, how does it evaporate on day 61? And if it was valid on day 59, a mere statute cannot dictate its invalidity. Second, there is something troubling about allowing Congress to require a president to terminate a military operation by inaction. Finally, as noted above, this provision ignores the frequently utilized congressional practice of expressing its support for a presidentially initiated military campaign by implication – primarily through funding and providing necessary resources (including manpower). Examples include not only the Korean War, but also the two post-WPR campaigns that exceeded 60 days without express statutory authorization: the Serbian air campaign in 1999, and the Libyan air campaign in 2011.

Nonetheless, the process of at least seeking congressional endorsement of a military campaign that extends beyond 60 days acknowledges a critically important premise: that the Constitution diffuses war powers between Congress and the President. While the requirement for express statutory authorization may have been constitutionally overbroad from inception of the WPR, seeking some manifestation of congressional support preserves this important war powers balance between the two political branches. Perhaps more importantly, it acknowledges the Congress’ constitutional authority to impose limits on – or even prohibit – commitment of the nation to hostilities.

Instead of acknowledging this shared constitutional role in authorizing war, the Trump administration is staking a claim of unilateral presidential authority. Because we are told there is little risk of U.S. casualties, Congress ostensibly has no role, and the WPR is inapplicable. But it is precisely because, “From small things, big things someday come” that Congress enacted the WPR. Acknowledging a congressional role now – while perhaps not necessarily express authorization – will advance the necessity that the administration make its case for the necessity, morality, and legality of this campaign before the representatives of We the People; give Congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional role in war powers; and most importantly protect the nation from being dragged, incrementally, into a war Congress may find near impossible to get us out of.

This is a genuine War Powers Resolution moment.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.

The National Nuclear Security Administration and Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully completed the depressurization of four flanged tritium waste containers and moved them to a waste staging location on site.

Offsite impacts were indistinguishable from background and pose no health or environmental consequences.

read more