Category: National Security & Defense

• The Government Breached Its Nuclear Promise. A Federal Court Just Said It Can’t Bill Ratepayers for the Delay.

  For more than 40 years, the Department of Energy has failed to collect spent nuclear fuel it legally agreed to remove. The latest court ruling closes off its most creative escape route yet.

  In 1982, Congress struck a deal with the nuclear power industry: utilities would pay into a federal waste fund, and the Department of Energy would permanently dispose of their spent nuclear fuel. The deadline was January 31, 1998.

  That deadline passed 28 years ago. DOE has not removed a single rod of spent fuel from any power plant. There is still no approved permanent repository. Yucca Mountain, the designated site, remains mired in a political stalemate with no resolution in sight.

  On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down its fifth ruling in this long-running series of cases, affirming a $145 million judgment against the United States in favor of three decommissioned New England nuclear utilities: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company, collectively known as “the Yankees.”

  The government did not dispute that it had breached its contract. It argued instead that it shouldn’t have to pay.

  The Arithmetic of an Ongoing Breach

  The Yankees stopped generating electricity in 1996 and completed decommissioning their plants by 2007. They continue to exist for one reason: the federal government has not collected the spent nuclear fuel sitting at their sites, stored in steel casks on concrete pads known as Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, or ISFSIs.

  Maintaining those ISFSIs costs money. Security, radiation monitoring, regulatory compliance, licensing. During the 2017 to 2021 claim period at the center of this appeal, those costs totaled $145 million. Because DOE has insisted it still intends to eventually perform under the contract, courts have treated the breach as “partial” and ongoing. That status prevents the Yankees from seeking a final, comprehensive damages award; instead, the litigation proceeds in five-year installments. This appeal was the fifth round.

  Four prior rounds produced nearly $500 million in judgments. Approximately $396 million of that has been returned to ratepayers.

  The Government’s Argument: Your Investment Gains Are Our Defense

  Federal regulations require nuclear utilities to maintain Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts (NDTs), segregated funds built from ratepayer contributions, to cover decommissioning and ongoing SNF storage costs. The Yankees’ NDTs have received $405 million in ratepayer contributions since their establishment in the early 1980s and have generated $339 million in investment earnings since 2009 alone.

  During the 2017 to 2021 claim period, the NDTs earned nearly $185 million in investment gains, more than enough to cover the $145 million in ISFSI expenses.

  The government’s argument was straightforward, if audacious: the Yankees used NDT funds to pay their breach-related costs, and those funds earned $185 million in that same period. Award them $145 million in damages on top of that, the government said, and you’re giving them a windfall. The NDT investment gains should offset the damages to zero.

  The Court of Federal Claims rejected that argument in February 2024. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Lourie and Prost, agreed.

  Why the Argument Failed

  The Federal Circuit identified two independent reasons the government’s offset theory doesn’t hold up.

  The gains didn’t mitigate anything. Mitigation, in contract law, means taking actions that actually reduce or avoid a loss. The Yankees’ ISFSI expenses did not go down because the NDTs had a good investment year. The costs mounted regardless. The government couldn’t identify a single expense that decreased as a result of the NDT gains. A funding source that pays for costs without reducing them is a checkbook, not mitigation.

  The court drew a sharp contrast with prior SNF cases where offsets were appropriate: utilities that upgraded to higher-enrichment fuel assemblies and saved money per cycle; utilities that reduced wet storage fees; utilities that pursued off-site storage arrangements. In each of those cases, the non-breaching party took action that actually reduced the damage caused by the breach. The Yankees’ NDT investment returns did neither.

  The gains aren’t connected to the breach. The mitigation offset rule requires a direct relationship, in time and subject matter, between the breach and the event the government wants to use as an offset. The NDTs were established in 1984, more than a decade before DOE’s breach began in 1998. They were created because federal law required them, not as a response to anything DOE did or failed to do. The court rejected the government’s argument that the relevant moment is the claim period rather than when the trusts were created, finding no legal authority supporting that reframing.

  The investment gains, the court wrote, are a “remote consequence” of the breach. A favorable one, but not one that reduces the government’s liability.

  The Windfall That Isn’t

  The government’s windfall argument had intuitive appeal: if the Yankees have $185 million sitting in their trust accounts and only owe $145 million in expenses, why should taxpayers also cut them a $145 million check?

  The court’s answer was precise: because the money in those trusts doesn’t belong to the Yankees. The NDTs are held in trust for ratepayers. Federal regulation requires that when DOE finally performs under the Standard Contract and the Yankees’ SNF storage obligations end, the NDT funds, including investment gains, must be returned to the ratepayers who contributed them. When the Yankees draw on NDTs to cover breach-related costs, they are borrowing against a fund that belongs to someone else. The damages award reimburses that fund.

  Reducing the damages award to zero, as the government asked, would leave ratepayers $145 million short. That is not preventing a windfall. That is engineering one, for the government.

  The Symmetry Problem

  The court added a final reason rooted in logical consistency.

  If NDT investment gains offset damages, NDT investment losses must increase them. That is not a novel legal principle; it is arithmetic. The same activity cannot be mitigation only when it is profitable. At oral argument, the government strongly implied it would never accept liability for NDT losses during partial breach periods. The court held that position disqualifies the government from claiming credit for the gains.

  “The NDTs and their investments are either mitigation activities or they are not,” the court wrote, citing prior Federal Circuit precedent. The government chose to disclaim responsibility for the downside. It cannot benefit from the upside.

  Where Things Stand

  The $145 million judgment stands. The Yankees, which exist solely to store nuclear waste the federal government contracted to remove a quarter-century ago, will receive that amount, which flows back to the ratepayers who funded the trust in the first place.

  DOE has no timeline for SNF removal. Yucca Mountain has no funding, no NRC license, and no political pathway. The courts have now awarded nearly $650 million in damages across five rounds of litigation, with more claim periods accumulating and more rounds ahead.

  The Standard Contract was supposed to solve the national problem of permanent nuclear waste disposal. Instead, it has become a perpetual litigation machine. The government loses, pays, and then tries to find new ways not to pay in the next round.

  This was the fifth round. It will not be the last.

  ---

  Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, et al. v. United States, No. 25-1395 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2026). Panel: Lourie, Prost, and Stark, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Stark.

  Fediverse Reactions

  8 reposts

  2026.09.11

• Hundreds of Separated CBP Contractors Still Have System Access, OIG Audit Finds

  A contractor leaves U.S. Customs and Border Protection with a password and access to a database full of biometric information, border patrol reports, and personally identifiable information. Because of a systemic process failure, that contractor can still log in months later. And CBP didn’t catch it — a federal audit did.

  Fifteen percent of contractors who separated from CBP retained active access to the agency’s computer systems after leaving, according to a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General audit released September 4, 2026. Among federal employees who transferred to new positions within CBP, 17 percent kept access they no longer needed.

  The most alarming finding: 86 percent of the transferred employees with unneeded access came from CBP’s most sensitive offices — the Office of Intelligence, U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and Office of Air and Marine Operations — meaning they retained access to systems containing “highly sensitive systems containing national security and personally identifiable information.”

  The audit, titled “CBP’s IT Access Control Deficiencies Introduced Critical Risk to IT Systems and Sensitive Information” (OIG-26-28), reveals a cascading failure in CBP’s account management process where supervisors and contracting officers fail to properly document separations and transfers, leaving hundreds of people with passwords to systems they should no longer be able to access.

  This is one of three pieces covering the same OIG audit. The other two examine a seven-year-old privileged account vulnerability that gave all 76,000 CBP network users administrative access, and a 2023 security directive that went unenforced for three years because no compliance mechanism was ever built.

  How the System is Supposed to Work

  CBP’s established process for account disablement after an employee or contractor leaves is straightforward: A supervisor or contracting officer should create a separation notification record in the Employee Separation System or Contractor Tracking System once they’re aware of the separation. That system then automatically notifies CBP’s centralized Access Management System (AMS), which disables the account on the separation effective date.

  DHS policy requires accounts be disabled within 3 days of separation.

  For transferred employees, the process is similar. The departing supervisor creates a transfer record, and the AMS automatically removes the employee’s old system access on the transfer date, while preserving access needed for their new position.

  On paper, it works. In practice, it collapses under the weight of CBP’s size and bureaucratic friction.

  Where the Process Breaks Down

  The audit examined separations and transfers that occurred in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. The findings show systematic non-compliance at nearly every step.

  For separated employees: Supervisors didn’t create separation notifications in a timely manner. The OIG sampled 365 employees who separated in FY 2023-2024 and found 72 (20 percent) had accounts that were not disabled promptly after they left. Among contractors, the problem was worse: 1,208 of 8,013 identified contractors (15 percent) had accounts not disabled in a timely manner.

  For separated contractors specifically: The data reveals a stunning breakdown. Of 1,208 contractor separations, 623 (52 percent) had separation records created more than 30 days after the contractor had already left CBP.

  Think about that timeline: A contractor walks out the door on day one. The supervisor doesn’t create a separation record. Days pass. Weeks pass. Thirty days later — well after the contractor should have been disabled — the separation record finally gets created. In the intervening month, that person could have been accessing databases from anywhere in the world.

  For transferred employees: Of 3,697 identified employee transfers, 615 (17 percent) retained unneeded access after moving to new positions. When supervisors entered transfer records late — after the employee had already transferred — the AMS didn’t automatically remove the old system access. The employees retained unnecessary access, likely without supervisor awareness.

  The OIG report notes that CBP configured its systems to remove existing access on the transfer date but not after. Why? To avoid inadvertently removing any newly granted access needed for the transferred employee’s new position. The result: Employees who transfer keep their old access indefinitely.

  Why CBP’s Backup Plan Doesn’t Work

  When the primary process failed, CBP relied on “backup controls” to eventually catch the problem: account inactivity. If an account wasn’t used for a certain period, the system would eventually disable it.

  This is not adequate. The DHS requirement is 3 days. Account inactivity can take weeks or months.

  “Although these backup controls helped reduce the risk of separated personnel retaining unnecessary access, they did not allow CBP to disable the accounts within 3 days of an employee’s separation, as required,” the OIG found.

  CBP also relied on data from the National Finance Center to identify separated employees. This creates a lag — payroll data isn’t real-time — meaning accounts could remain active longer than policy allows.

  The National Security Angle

  Of the 615 transferred employees who retained unneeded access, 531 (86 percent) came from CBP’s most sensitive offices.

  The significance of this cannot be overstated. These are not administrative workers losing access to email or shared drives. These are personnel from the Office of Intelligence, Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and Office of Air and Marine Operations retaining access to systems with “national security and personally identifiable information.”

  Transferred employees with access to information without a need-to-know and legitimate business purpose weaken operational security and integrity of the programs and systems, the OIG noted. Such access “could result in using the access for improper purposes.”

  This raises personnel security questions: Is CBP conducting counterintelligence reviews to determine why someone transferred and whether they retained access? Are there cases where an employee transferred after disciplinary action or under suspicious circumstances and retained sensitive access?

  The OIG audit doesn’t address this question. It’s one worth investigating further.

  The June 2025 Breach Question

  In June 2025, multiple DHS components, including CBP, experienced a cybersecurity incident that allowed hackers to steal CBP employee data. The OIG report mentions this incident as context for why CBP needs strong access controls — attackers regularly target CBP systems.

  The audit does not state whether the June 2025 breach involved separated or transferred personnel accounts. But given that CBP had hundreds of accounts that should have been disabled but weren’t, it’s a logical question: Did hackers use a former contractor’s credentials to gain access?

  Bureaucracy Times submitted that question to CBP. The agency has not responded.

  CBP’s Response and Timeline

  CBP concurred with all 12 OIG recommendations related to this finding. The agency’s planned corrective actions include:

  • Updating supervisor training by August 31, 2026
  • Implementing a new “Submit” tab on separation forms that automatically emails supervisors with reminders and direct links to the Employee Separation System (also by August 31)
  • Issuing formal notification memorandums to contracting officer representatives (by August 31)
  • Developing a process to periodically review contractor separations for compliance (by August 31)
  • Evaluating and formalizing the process for managing access when CBP personnel transfer internally (by August 31)
  • Implementing controls to monitor and review transferred personnel’s access (by August 31)

  All of these were due by August 31, 2026. Whether CBP met those deadlines has not been confirmed. This article will be updated as new information becomes available. But the core problem — that CBP is attempting to manage account security through human process compliance rather than automated enforcement — remains unaddressed.

  The Real Issue: Process, Not Technology

  CBP’s explanation for the failure places blame on “human error and challenges associated with monitoring account access changes over time.” But this framing misses the point.

  The problem isn’t that supervisors are careless. The problem is that CBP built a system that depends on thousands of supervisors remembering to file paperwork within 3 days of separation, across an organization with 67,000 personnel, 4,500 facilities nationwide, and constantly shifting staffing.

  A modern access management system should detect separations from HR records automatically. A supervisor forgetting to file a form shouldn’t be able to delay account disablement. These are solvable technical problems, not inherent human failures.

  Instead, CBP has implemented “backup controls” and relies on account inactivity as a de facto enforcement mechanism. This is reactive security, not proactive security.

  The OIG recommendation to “update supervisor training” may help marginally, but it doesn’t address the structural problem: CBP’s access management process is fundamentally broken at the design level.

  What’s at Stake

  CBP protects America’s borders and manages biometric data on millions of people. The agency processes travel documents, law enforcement information, and intelligence. Contractors working for CBP — software developers, IT managers, security consultants — have access to some of the most sensitive information in the federal government.

  If CBP can’t reliably remove their access when they leave, the agency can’t reliably protect that information.

  The OIG audit found this problem in September 2026. CBP is promising fixes by August 2026. If the timeline holds and the fixes work, accounts should be disabled more reliably going forward.

  But accounts that should have been disabled in 2023 and 2024 — the subject of this audit — remain within CBP’s systems today. CBP has not said whether it has gone back and cleaned up those historical accounts, or what it found when it reviewed the access logs.

  Those are questions worth asking.

  ---

  References and Links

  Full OIG Report (OIG-26-28): CBP’s IT Access Control Deficiencies Introduced Critical Risk to IT Systems and Sensitive Information — Released September 4, 2026 by the DHS Office of Inspector General

  DHS OIG Homepage: www.oig.dhs.gov

  Relevant DHS Policy (referenced in audit):

  • DHS 4300A: Information Technology System Security Program, Sensitive Systems (v. 13.4, December 2024)
  • NIST SP 800-53, Revision 5: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations

  CBP Policy Directives (referenced in audit):

  • CBP Directive 51715-006: Separation and Reassignment Directive for CBP Employees (August 2023)
  • CBP Directive 1210-007B: Tracking of Contractor Employees (August 2023)
  • CBP Identity Credential and Access Management Directive (IPL-2022-05-0253, May 2023)

  ---

  Editor’s Notes

  — CBP was contacted for additional details on the June 2025 cybersecurity incident and whether separated/transferred personnel accounts were involved. The agency has not responded as of September 9, 2026.

  — The report notes that “CBP provided timely responses to our requests for information and did not delay or deny access to information we requested” during the audit. This OIG notation is standard language confirming agency cooperation.

  — All 12 recommendations in the audit were concurred with by CBP, meaning the agency agreed with the findings and committed to corrective action.

  Fediverse Reactions

  8 reposts

  2026.09.08

• Cyber Command’s Website Is a Ghost Town. The Command Itself Is Not.

  The Command That Talks For A Living, And Says Almost Nothing

  Type “cybercom.mil” into a browser in late August 2026 and you meet a curious vacuum. The official press release page, the place where the Pentagon usually hangs its official verbs, carries a single line: “No Items”.

  The homepage news carousel shuffles through items from multiple years with no obvious chronology. Links that promise congressional testimony route to 2023 hearings. The @US_CYBERCOM and @CNMF_CyberAlert accounts on X exist, but they function as occasional bulletin boards, not as real time operational feeds. This is the public face of United States Cyber Command in August 2026.

  The gap between what cybercom.mil communicates and what has actually been happening inside the command over the past eighteen months is not subtle. It is structural.

  Over that period, U.S. Cyber Command has navigated a year long leadership gap at the top, announced the most sweeping reorganization in its history, watched a president sign a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) that invites private companies into offensive cyber operations, and confronted a cluster of deaths by suicide in its ranks.

  The website that belongs to the command at the center of these events has, by design or neglect, remained nearly silent. For an institution that writes doctrine about the fight over information, that silence is not incidental. It is evidence.

  A Command Built To Act, Not To Hide

  U.S. Cyber Command did not appear by accident. It came into existence through a Secretary of Defense directive on June 23, 2009, and became a unified combatant command in 2018.

  From the start, the structure carried weight. The commander serves in a dual hat arrangement as Director of the National Security Agency. The command oversees the Cyber Mission Force, the units that defend Department of Defense networks, support other combatant commanders, and conduct offensive cyber operations when ordered.

  This is not a sleepy support shop. It sits inside the same tier of authority as U.S. Central Command or U.S. European Command, with the added friction of NSA on the other side of the wall. Its operators run hunt forward missions, execute offensive campaigns against foreign military targets, and defend critical infrastructure in coordination with domestic agencies.

  In raw operational tempo, it is one of the busiest commands in the federal government. In public, at least as reflected on cybercom.mil, you would never know it.

  A Year Without A Confirmed Commander

  In April 2025, the dual hat office at Fort Meade emptied out. The previous commander departed, and the role of acting commander fell to Lieutenant General William Hartman, long time chief of the Cyber National Mission Force. His official Defense Department biography notes that he assumed the job as acting commander in spring 2025. He would hold it for nearly a year.

  The Senate finally confirmed General Joshua M. Rudd on March 10, 2026, as reported by the Washington Post.

  According to his NSA leadership biography, he assumed the dual hat command on March 20, 2026.

  A year long vacancy at the top of one of the country’s most sensitive combatant commands, during an active period of cyber conflict and heightened tension with peer adversaries, is not a routine personnel wrinkle. It is a governance failure with operational implications. Yet the command’s own public affairs machinery offered no sustained public accounting of the gap, its causes, or its effects.

  The absence is itself a choice.

  “CYBERCOM 2.0” Without A Home Page

  On August 14, 2026, the Pentagon tried to turn the page. In a news release posted to the Department of Defense site, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced what the department styled as “CYBERCOM 2.0”.

  The release describes the largest transformation of the command since its creation. It establishes a Revised Cyber Force Generation Model and creates three new enabling organizations: a Cyber Talent Management Organization, an Advanced Cyber Training and Education Center, and a Cyber Innovation Warfare Center.

  In his June 5, 2026 posture statement posted on cybercom.mil, General Rudd framed the goals in the expected confident language of a new commander talking about readiness and modernization. The force generation overhaul, the talent management reforms, the new training and innovation hubs, all appear in his prepared testimony and in the Pentagon press release.

  What does not appear, at least as of late summer, is a matching narrative on the command’s own press release page. The most sweeping structural change in the command’s sixteen year history was announced through the Pentagon’s general press apparatus and the national security press corps. Cybercom.mil, the digital front door of the institution being transformed, did not carry a corresponding press release.

  For a command that spends its working life advising others on how to shape information environments, this is a remarkable failure to shape its own.

  Inviting Cyber Privateers Into The Fight

  The same day Secretary Hegseth rolled out CYBERCOM 2.0, the White House released a National Security Presidential Memorandum titled “Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime”.

  This was not an executive order. It was an NSPM that quietly authorized vetted private U.S. companies, under federal oversight and control, to conduct cyber surveillance and cyber effects operations against foreign transnational criminal organizations engaged in cyber enabled crime. The memorandum established a National Coordination Center to supervise the effort.

  The Washington Post described the move as a first of its kind opening for private sector offensive cyber operations in a space that had largely belonged to U.S. Cyber Command and the NSA.

  Federal News Network highlighted fresh questions about Computer Fraud and Abuse Act exposure, Fourth Amendment constraints, and oversight architectures for companies now invited to conduct state authorized hacking abroad.

  A legal analysis by Mayer Brown walked through potential liability shields and diplomatic friction points created by unleashing commercial actors in foreign networks.

  In other words, the White House used a national security instrument to redraw, at least at the margins, the exclusive domain of USCYBERCOM and NSA.

  It created a new class of state supervised cyber privateers. The command whose remit is closest to the new authorities did not, as of this writing, see fit to explain or contextualize any of this on its own website. Outsiders are left to read between the lines of others’ reporting, while cybercom.mil maintains the fiction that nothing especially novel happened in mid-August.

  A Cluster Of Deaths, And A Public Silence

  On August 6 and 7, Bloomberg reported that U.S. Cyber Command was confronting an unusually high number of deaths by suicide among its personnel over a roughly month long period in early summer 2026, describing as many as five deaths between early June and early July, based on unnamed sources.

  Breaking Defense followed with a report describing the pattern as a cluster significant enough to merit intervention from senior Pentagon leadership.

  The facts as reported are grave, and they sit in a context that is already hard on human beings.

  Cyber operators work under unusually dense classification, chronic shift work, and the psychological weight of offensive missions conducted far from any visible battlefield. A cluster of deaths by suicide inside that community is a personnel welfare and institutional accountability story of the first order.

  Yet the command’s news feed and press release page, as visible to the public, carry no notice, no statement of condolence, no description of resources, no acknowledgement that Congress is asking questions. The command is talking, or preparing to talk, to lawmakers behind closed doors. It is not talking to the public about what is, at bottom, a human crisis within its ranks.

  The Doctrine Of Information, Ignored At Home

  Cyber Command’s own doctrine, strategy documents, and posture statements are fond of reminding everyone that information is a contested domain, that perception shapes deterrence, and that adversaries exploit every vacuum.

  The command publishes a public affairs contact line, USCYBERCOM Public Affairs, reachable at uscybercom_pao@cybercom.mil.

  It maintains a presence on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service.

  It runs two branded X accounts.

  These are not the hallmarks of a command that lacks public communications infrastructure. They are the footprints of a command that has built the tools and then chosen, for some combination of operational security caution, resource constraints, and leadership priorities, to let its own primary website sit in a state that resembles abandonment.

  OPSEC concerns in this space are real. So are classification rules. No one expects live targeting updates on cybercom.mil. But it does not require revealing sources and methods to acknowledge a prolonged leadership vacancy, to summarize a publicly announced institutional reorganization, to explain what a presidential memorandum does or does not change for the command, or to recognize publicly that multiple members of the workforce have died by suicide and that the institution takes that seriously.

  Those are choices about accountability, not about secrecy.

  “No Items” In A Very Busy Year

  The front door to U.S. Cyber Command’s public presence still insists that it has no press releases. Its carousel still spins news items from assorted years with all the coherence of a forgotten bulletin board. Its homepage still sends readers to 2023 testimony while 2026 hearings unfold elsewhere.

  In the same span of months, the command has gained a new dual hat commander, undergone a sweeping reorganization, watched a presidential memorandum invite private actors into offensive cyber operations, and begun fielding congressional scrutiny over a cluster of deaths by suicide in its workforce.

  The information is not hidden.

  Bloomberg has it.

  The Washington Post has it.

  Breaking Defense has it.

  Specialty legal analysts have it.

  Congress has it.

  USCYBERCOM Public Affairs, whose email address sits quietly on cybercom.mil, appears content to let others tell the story.

  For a command built on the premise that information is power, there may be no sharper indictment than its own decision to leave its primary window to the public marked “No Items.”

  CYBERCOM’s accountability gap has a parallel in the conventional defense world. The Navy’s attack submarine fleet — another category of high-stakes military capability where public accountability has lagged operational reality — is the subject of our $3.4 billion submarine maintenance report. Both cases show the same pattern: an institution managing a crisis internally while its public face insists everything is on schedule.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  2026.09.03

• $3.4 Billion Sitting at the Pier: The Navy’s Submarine Maintenance Crisis, Quantified

  Fifteen Thousand Lost Days: The Submarine Fleet That Waited at the Pier

  USS Boise was supposed to be a workhorse, not a case study. Commissioned in 1992, the Los Angeles class attack submarine spent much of the last decade not hunting adversary submarines, not collecting intelligence, but waiting. First she waited for an overhaul that slipped year after year while the public shipyards had no room for her. Then she waited for a solution that never arrived.

  In February 2024, the Navy finally awarded a $1.2 billion contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries to perform Boise’s long delayed refueling overhaul, nine years after it should have begun, as Defense News reported. The message was simple enough: late, but at least the boat would return to the fleet. Then, in April 2026, the Navy quietly announced Boise’s inactivation, closing the books on a submarine that never received the overhaul taxpayers had just funded on paper.

  Boise has become the most expensive illustration of a problem the Government Accountability Office has now quantified in GAO 26 109256, released publicly on August 27, 2026. Over the past decade, the Navy’s attack submarines have lost more than 15,000 operational days because the service could not get them into, through, and out of depot maintenance on time. The bill for that failure, according to GAO’s public report and coverage by Defense News and Breaking Defense, is roughly $3.4 billion. From fiscal 2016 through 2025, only about 11 percent of depot maintenance availabilities at the Navy’s public shipyards finished on schedule.

  Boise is a cautionary tale. GAO’s numbers show it is also a preview.

  The Numbers Behind the Pier

  GAO 26 109256 dissects the problem in terms that leave little room for creative interpretation. Lost time falls into two main buckets. First, maintenance delays, when a submarine is in the shipyard longer than planned. Second, inactive idle time, when a submarine sits pier side waiting for a dry dock or shipyard slot that is not available.

  Neither bucket is theoretical. Over the past ten years, attack submarines accumulated more than 15,000 lost operational days in these two categories, GAO found. That is more than forty years of submarine availability erased from the fleet’s usable inventory. Breaking Defense reported GAO’s estimate that the resulting cost to the government is about $3.4 billion over that period, with Defense News underscoring the scale of the time loss.

  The report does not publish detailed figures on National Reconnaissance Office or National Geospatial Intelligence Agency spending related to submarine operations. Those numbers sit behind the classification wall. The attack submarine maintenance figures do not. GAO lays out a future in which the problem gets worse before it gets better. Between fiscal 2026 and 2030, the watchdog projects that 15 attack submarines will enter inactive idle time, generating more than 14,000 additional idle days and about $3.1 billion in associated costs.

  In theory, a growing fleet could absorb some of that dead time. In practice, the fleet is not growing at the rate Navy leaders have advertised. As USNI News reported in May 2026, the Virginia class production line was turning out about one submarine per year as of mid 2025, half the Navy’s stated goal of two per year. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle projected that the two per year build rate would not be achieved until the 2030s. When the industrial base delivers new hulls at half speed while existing boats stack up in maintenance queues, the arithmetic does not favor operational commanders.

  How a Submarine Ends Up Waiting for Years

  The structural cause is not mysterious. Four public naval shipyards perform depot level maintenance on nuclear powered submarines and carriers. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington, and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii each have fixed dry dock capacity and infrastructure that was old when many of the current crews were in elementary school.

  When a major availability runs long, the queue behind it does not disappear. The next submarine in line waits at the pier, crew embarked, reactor shut down, systems aging instead of operating. That wait can stretch for months or years, as with Boise. During that time, the Navy pays operating and support costs for a submarine that is not operating and cannot be supported back to readiness because there is no place to put it.

  The Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, or SIOP, is the Navy’s answer on paper. SIOP is the multi decade effort to modernize and expand dry docks, facilities, and equipment at the four public yards. GAO’s 2026 report acknowledges SIOP’s role but also points out a simple fact of civil engineering. Dry docks take years to design, years to build, and years more to bring fully online. They are not a quick reaction capability.

  Workforce is the other half of the problem. Nuclear qualified shipyard workers are not interchangeable with generic labor. They take years to recruit, clear, train, and season. The shipyards have struggled to retain experienced personnel while competing with private industry and facing demographic headwinds. GAO identifies these capacity constraints in both infrastructure and workforce as root causes of missed maintenance schedules and rising idle time.

  None of this is new information inside the Navy. In GAO 19 229, published in 2019, the watchdog documented that attack submarines had lost more than 10,000 days of availability between 2008 and 2018 due to maintenance backlogs and idle time at the public shipyards. The 2026 report does not reveal a surprise. It simply updates the score, and the score has worsened.

  From Boise to a Fleet Wide Condition

  It is tempting to file Boise under tragic one off mismanagement. GAO’s data argues the opposite. Boise is an extreme case, but not an outlier. She illustrates what happens when inactive idle time stops being the rare exception and becomes a routine phase in a submarine’s life cycle.

  The projection that 15 attack submarines will enter inactive idle time through fiscal 2030 is more than a statistic. Each hull represents a crew that must either sit and wait or be reassigned, an operational commitment that slips into the future, and a maintenance bill that grows with every idle day. Systems do not age gracefully while sitting unused in salt air.

  These numbers intersect badly with the strategic commitments the United States has made. Under the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the United Kingdom, the United States has pledged to support Australian acquisition of nuclear powered submarines and to host rotational deployments of Virginia class boats at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. The joint statement from AUKUS defence ministers in May 2026 reaffirmed those ambitions. They rest on an assumption that the United States will have enough attack submarines in working order to rotate through these deployments while still meeting U.S. Indo Pacific Command and other combatant commanders’ needs. GAO’s maintenance and idle time projections invite a hard look at that assumption.

  GAO’s Workarounds and the Navy’s Shrug

  GAO 26 109256 does more than add up days and dollars. The watchdog recommends that the Navy evaluate options for managing submarines that are approaching inactive idle time so that the fleet can squeeze more utility out of constrained shipyard capacity.

  The options GAO lists will sound familiar to anyone who has listened to maintenance planners for more than five minutes. Pier side defueling, where a submarine’s nuclear fuel is removed at a pier rather than in a dry dock, could free up scarce dry dock space for other work. Reduced crewing arrangements could cut the cost of keeping a submarine idle while still preserving the core cadre needed for eventual return to service or inactivation. Service life extensions, when technically sound, could keep boats in the fleet longer while newer construction lags.

  These are not elegant fixes. They are triage plans for a system that cannot be expanded quickly. GAO’s recommendations read like the bureaucratic equivalent of telling the Navy to stop leaving fully crewed submarines parked at the pier out of habit when cheaper, more rational options exist.

  The Navy’s formal response, as summarized in the public report, was to verbally concur with GAO’s recommendations and provide no written comments. Readers of GAO reports know what that phrase means. It is the institutional version of nodding politely at a briefing and then walking back to the office to keep doing things the old way. GAO issued the report in classified form on July 16, 2026; the public version arrived six weeks later, on August 27, a normal interval. The seven year gap between GAO 19 229 and GAO 26 109256, with the same core findings and larger numbers, is harder to categorize as normal.

  Why the Lost Days Matter

  Attack submarines are the Navy’s most strategically versatile conventional assets. They hunt adversary submarines and surface ships, collect intelligence, support special operations forces, launch cruise missiles, and complicate the planning of any potential adversary. They are the quiet part of American power that foreign naval officers worry about when they look at a map.

  Every day an attack submarine sits at a pier waiting for a dry dock that is not available is a day it is not doing any of those things. The 15,000 lost operational days GAO tallies over the past decade are not abstract bookkeeping. They represent patrols that never sailed, signals that were never intercepted, exercises that relied on fewer submarines than planned, and allied navies that saw less American presence than they were told to expect.

  The report arrives at a moment when the Navy is juggling multiple pressures. AUKUS commitments require more available attack submarines, not fewer. The Virginia class construction line is below the desired production rate, as senior leaders acknowledge. The surface fleet has its own readiness and maintenance problems that compete for shipyard resources and political attention. The submarine maintenance crisis does not sit apart from this picture. It lives at the center of a maritime strategy that depends on stealthy, persistent undersea presence.

  GAO has now spent more than a decade documenting, in public, that the Navy’s ability to maintain that presence is constrained by shipyards and processes the service controls. USS Boise’s lost overhaul and quiet inactivation are not merely an unfortunate footnote in that record. They are a warning of what happens when an institution learns to live with failure at scale and calls it a scheduling problem.

  The submarine maintenance crisis is not the only place where a U.S. military command’s public accountability has failed to keep pace with what’s actually happening inside the institution. Our coverage of CYBERCOM’s ghost town website documents a command that underwent its largest reorganization in history, absorbed a suicide cluster among its personnel, and watched a presidential memorandum redraw its operational domain — all without a single press release on its own site. Both cases point to institutions that have learned to manage their public narrative by simply not having one.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  2026.09.03

• Warheads to Watts: The Administrative State’s Multi-Billion Dollar Gamble on Privatized Plutonium

  Plutonium-239: From Waste Liability to “National Asset”

  For decades, the Department of Energy (DOE) treated the United States’ surplus of weapons-grade plutonium as a toxic ledger entry—a multi-billion dollar waste liability destined for dilution and burial in the salt beds of New Mexico.

  This “dilute and dispose” model at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was the established fallback, chosen specifically because it was a cheaper and simpler security path.

  However, a sudden strategic pivot has rebranded this Cold War legacy. Following a May 2025 executive order, the administrative state unveiled the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program, effectively abandoning the simpler security model to transform 19.7 metric tons of plutonium from a “taxpayer drain” into an energy asset.

  This reclassification, marketed as a visionary move toward a “circular energy economy,” is characterized by the DOE as a pivot from management to innovation.

  Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Josh Jarrell framed the shift as follows:

  “Surplus plutonium was once viewed solely as a nuclear liability and a multi-billion-dollar financial drain on taxpayers—but it doesn’t have to remain one. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are redirecting this Cold War legacy to serve as a vital energy asset, powering the next generation of American nuclear innovation.”

  Beneath the rhetoric of “American energy dominance” lies a classic bureaucratic maneuver: the offloading of a multi-billion dollar liability onto the private sector. By “unlocking private sector funding,” the DOE is attempting to hide the immense long-term costs and security risks of 19.7 tons of high-level nuclear material.

  This investigative report attempts to determine whether the federal leviathan is truly innovating or merely abdicating responsibility to a small circle of startups.

  The Private Gatekeepers: Analyzing the Five-Company “Renaissance”

  The delegation of high-stakes nuclear security to private entities represents a radical departure from the status quo. Management of weapons-grade plutonium, traditionally the exclusive domain of government-run laboratories, is being outsourced to five startups.

  While the DOE touts this as a competitive “renaissance,” the selection process is shrouded in opacity.

  Company	Role & Operational Status	Known Operations/Testing
  Oklo	Developing “Aurora” liquid metal-cooled fast reactors.	Active plutonium testing at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); utilizing material as “bridge fuel.”
  Exodys Energy	Advanced negotiations for material allocation and recycling.	No specific operational details; status relies on “proprietary processes.”
  Flibe Energy	Focused on molten salt/advanced reactor development.	No specific operational details; status relies on “proprietary processes.”
  SHINE Technologies	Specialized in plutonium processing and fuel cycle tech.	No specific operational details; status relies on “proprietary processes.”
  Standard Nuclear	Negotiations for conversion of national energy assets.	No specific operational details; status relies on “proprietary processes.”

  The lack of operational data for Exodys, Flibe, SHINE, and Standard Nuclear serves as a significant transparency red flag.

  Apart from Oklo’s work at Los Alamos National Laboratory, these entities appear as “paper-based” contenders in a high-stakes negotiation.

  This unprecedented paradigm places the entire administrative and financial burden (the design, funding, construction, and decommissioning) onto companies with unproven infrastructure. By shifting end-to-end facility management to the private sector, the DOE effectively bypasses traditional oversight, creating a scenario ripe for regulatory capture.

  The Fast Reactor Mirage: Engineering Realities vs. Bureaucratic Hype

  The Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program is a bet on “fast reactors,” a technology that offers elegant physics but has historically proven to be an engineering quagmire.

  The U.S. is asking startups to succeed where the federal government failed with the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and where global powers like France (Superphénix) and Japan (Monju) retreated due to high costs and outages.

  Persistent Engineering Realities:

  • The Coolant Dilemma:  Fast reactors generally rely on liquid sodium, which reacts violently with air and water. Sodium is also opaque, which complicates visual inspections of internal components.
  • Sodium-24 Activation:  Liquid sodium is subject to Sodium-24 activation, creating severe radiation handling challenges that add significant complexity to maintenance and repairs.
  • Material Stress:  High temperatures and high-energy neutron bombardment lead to “irradiation swelling” and “cladding corrosion,” punishing reactor components far beyond the limits of standard commercial plants.
  • Safety Dynamics:  Many designs possess a “positive void coefficient.” If the coolant boils or voids, the reactor’s power can dangerously increase, necessitating near-perfect safety systems to prevent core reconfiguration.

  The DOE’s promotion of “elegant physics” ignores the track record of leaks and fires that have historically plagued these systems. The engineering burden placed on these startups is immense, contrasting sharply with the bureaucratic optimism driving the current privatization effort.

  The Proliferation Gamble: Security in the Age of Privatization

  Plutonium-239 is an attractive target for theft and diversion, as it is inherently weapons-usable. The 1974 India nuclear test, which utilized plutonium from a “peaceful” reactor, serves as the historical trigger for modern U.S. proliferation fears. Distributing 19.7 metric tons of this material to private startups is an unprecedented move that heightens global security risks.

  Logistical and Security Challenges:

  1. Direct Weapons Use:  Unlike standard commercial fuel, weapons-grade plutonium oxide and metal can be used directly for nuclear explosives, requiring security measures far beyond standard commercial protocols.
  2. Logistical Chains:  Safe transport requires armed convoys and absolute logistical integrity. Any failure in stabilization or packaging could have catastrophic consequences.
  3. Oversight Limitations:  Providing continuous, independent oversight for five separate private facilities—each guarding “proprietary processes”—will likely overwhelm the IAEA and domestic regulators.

  This program risks significant “mission creep” within the DOE as it attempts to monitor material it no longer directly controls. 

  Whether a private startup can maintain the security standards of a national defense laboratory remains an unanswered, multi-billion dollar question.

  The Shadow of Savannah River: A History of Costly Failures

  The current initiative follows the spectacular collapse of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site. That failure is precisely why “dilute and dispose” became the fallback in the first place, creating a circular loop of bureaucratic and nuclear waste.

  Economic Reality Check:

  • Fiscal Obfuscation:  The Savannah River project was initially estimated at $1-2 billion but ballooned to over $50 billion before its 2018 cancellation.
  • The Cost of Fuel:  Historical data shows that plutonium-based fuels are 3 to 9 times more expensive than standard fuel due to specialized fabrication and licensing.
  • Sunk-Cost Fallacies:  By framing this as a private-sector endeavor, the administrative state attempts to shield itself from future cost overruns, yet the taxpayer remains the ultimate guarantor of the material’s security.

  This pivot appears less like a technological fix and more like a strategy to obscure the inevitable costs associated with a fuel cycle that has historically burned through federal budgets with zero commercial output.

  Global Divergence: The French and Russian Benchmarks

  The U.S. strategy of relying on startups to leapfrog established technology stands in stark contrast to the state-led models of France and Russia.

  Category	The French Model	The Russian Model
  Focus	MOX fuel for light-water reactors (LWRs).	Advanced fast reactor integration (BN-600/800).
  Proven Success	MOX provides ~5% of new nuclear fuel globally; France has utilized 7,500+ MOX assemblies.	Only nation to successfully commercialize fast reactor technology.
  Strategy	Government-delivered public good; MOX generates 10% of France’s electricity.	High-energy neutron focus for breeding fuel and burning transuranic waste.

  France’s model proves that plutonium utilization can work at scale, but only with massive, centralized government backing. Russia has commercialized the very technology the West views as experimental.

  The U.S. startup gamble ignores these benchmarks, choosing instead a path of maximum complexity and minimal transparency.

  Accountability, Liberty, and the Path Forward

  The DOE’s pivot from “waste” to “asset” is a calculated gamble that shifts risk from federal ledgers to private balance sheets while keeping the inherent dangers of Plutonium-239 very much alive.

  While the potential for energy independence is high, the narrative is riddled with technical gaps and historical failures. The physics of fast reactors may be sound, but the engineering and economic realities remain formidable barriers that have defeated better-funded national programs.

  Whether this program represents a genuine nuclear renaissance or a convenient way for the administrative state to hide an expensive liability depends on the transparency of the upcoming negotiations.

  Lingering Questions for the Regulatory Apparatus:

  1. Fiscal Transparency:  What mechanisms are in place to prevent the DOE from quietly issuing federal subsidies if these “private” projects begin to suffer from the same cost-bloat seen at Savannah River?
  2. Insolvency Safeguards:  What specific, liquid assets do these five startups hold to guarantee the immediate re-securing of weapons-grade material by the state in the event of a Chapter 11 filing?
  3. Verifiable Milestones:  Given the $50 billion failure at Savannah River, what objective, non-proprietary milestones have been established to ensure this program does not become a decades-long financial drain?

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  Fediverse Reactions

  14 reposts

  2026.07.03

• Governing on Thin Ice: The Arctic Research Commission’s 1,000-Day Plan for a Melting World

  The United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC) recently released its “Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2019–2020,” and other documents that read less like a strategic roadmap and more like a set of frantic maintenance instructions for a house whose foundation has already transitioned from a solid state to a muddy slurry.

  The core irony of this federal directive lies in its profound temporal blindness. As Chair Fran Ulmer and her fellow commissioners attempt to “manage” a region warming at twice the global average, they are doing so with a bureaucratic toolkit that is functionally a reliquary.

  Updating Outdated Stuff

  In a stunning display of what can only be described as ‘digital archaeology,’ the Commission has finally decided to retire its beloved Environmental Atlas of Alaska, a collection of maps so ancient they likely still listed ‘terra incognita’ as a primary land feature.

  In its place, they’ve rolled out the Arctic-EDS, a tool that supposedly drags Arctic engineering into the 21st century by acknowledging that the climate is, in fact, changing (a radical concept, we know). By swapping out dusty paper charts for ‘downscaled climate models’ and ‘bias-corrected data,’ the agency hopes to prove that they aren’t just guessing where the permafrost used to be before it turned into a swamp.

  Of course, whether this shiny new ‘Design Support System’ will actually result in infrastructure that doesn’t sink into the tundra, or if it’s just a more expensive way to watch the ice melt in high definition, remains, as always, a matter of bureaucratic optimism over physical reality.

  The bastion of federal oversight is currently engaged in a desperate, late-stage scramble to retrofit the apocalypse. The Commission’s primary motivation for infrastructure research is the startling realization that 70 percent of all Arctic infrastructure, the very bones of civilian and military presence, is currently perched atop near-surface permafrost destined to liquefy within the next 30 years.

  This architectural expiration date is fixed and will not be moved by the lofty, hollow targets of the Paris Agreement. We are witnessing an institutional panic to rewrite the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria 3-130 for Arctic and Sub-Arctic Construction, a set of guidelines so out of step with the current climate that they might as well be written for a different planet.

  The Arctic is no longer a pristine wilderness. No, it is a crumbling construction site where the ground is literally turning to mud beneath the weight of building codes drawn when the USSR was still a primary concern.

  The Infrastructure Farce: Roombas and Icebreakers

  Goal 1 of the USARC plan, “Advance Arctic Infrastructure,” is an exercise in techno-optimism that borders on the delusional. The Commission highlights high-tech interventions as if they were enough to offset the total absence of basic geographic knowledge. They offer us toys while the house collapses.

  Stated Goal vs. Cold Reality

  • The High-Tech Vision:  The Arctic Domain Awareness Center (ADAC) is testing Long Range Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (LRAUV) capable of producing 3-D maps of oil spills under solid ice packs for 15 days on a single charge.
  • The Cold Reality:  Only 4.1 percent of the U.S. maritime Arctic is currently charted to modern international standards. The federal government is attempting to navigate a “New Arctic” using sparse, prehistoric data collected in an era before the region began its current thermal nosedive. We have 3-D maps of hypothetical spills but no idea where the seafloor actually is.
  • The High-Tech Vision:  The “Polar Scout” research program successfully launched small cube satellites in December 2018 to enhance Arctic communication and “domain awareness.”
  • The Cold Reality:  This “awareness” is being broadcast to a built environment—roads, sewers, and energy systems—that relies on “decision-support tools” the Commission admits are based on environmental conditions that have “evolved significantly over the past 30 to 40 years.” We are launching satellites to monitor bases built on 1984 environmental assumptions.
  • The High-Tech Vision:  The Coast Guard is field-testing an oil skimmer colloquially known as the “Roomba,” a name that perfectly encapsulates the triviality of the response.
  • The Cold Reality:  While we play with robotic vacuums in ice-infested waters, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and other energy transport systems are facing a future where traditional pipelines are no longer viable. The Leviathan is considering “gas-to-liquids transport” and “high-voltage direct current transmission” as desperate, expensive adaptations to a landscape that can no longer support a simple tube.

  Resource Extraction: The “Critical” Scramble

  Goal 2 shifts the focus to “Strategic and Economic possibilities,” which is bureaucratic shorthand for the desperate scramble to strip-mine the melting frontier. There is a palpable, shivering geopolitical anxiety in the push for “Critical Minerals.”

  The Department of the Interior has identified 35 minerals essential to national security (including things like graphite, tin, platinum, and cobalt) and is currently begging for new U.S. sources to decrease “dependence on foreign sources.” The Commission looks with a certain institutional envy at the Canadian government, which had the foresight to invest $75 million (US) in a geo-mapping program to identify energy and mineral resources.

  Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is still “preparing a report to the President.” This scramble for resources is occurring alongside a biological invasion that serves as a stinging metaphor for the government’s lack of control.

  Satellite imagery reveals that beavers are “colonizing” the tundra, moving northward as shrub vegetation increases. These un-permissioned engineers are reshaping hydrological systems and distribution patterns of permafrost. The beavers are effectively reshaping the landscape and exacerbating climate change with more efficiency than any federal infrastructure planner. The government is busy forming committees to discuss cobalt while the beavers have already re-engineered the plumbing.

  The Environmental “Blob” and the Methane Exploded Craters

  The data synthesized under Goal 3 paints a picture of an ecosystem in a state of violent, irreversible transition. Between 2014 and 2016, “The Blob,” a pool of unusually warm water in the North Pacific, decimated Pacific cod productivity by over 80 percent.

  This was followed by a “Jellyfish Surge” in the Bering Sea, where soaring numbers of jellyfish are consuming the biomass that used to support fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. The Bering Strait remained virtually ice-free for the first time since 1850.

  The most evocative image of this environmental instability, however, is found on the Yamal Peninsula. Craters have been discovered that appear to have “exploded up and outwards.” Unlike a standard sinkhole where the ground collapses, these cavities are formed by increasing internal pressure until the ground simply bursts. The pressure may be due to methane build up.

  This is the perfect mirror for the “bureaucratic pressure” of the USARC. Just as methane builds under the permafrost, the pressure of a melting world is building under the ossified structures of the government.

  The stakes are lethal: methane is “28 times more potent than carbon dioxide” as a heat-trapping gas. As permafrost thaws, microorganisms are digesting organic matter and releasing this gas, creating a positive feedback loop that the government is merely “observing.” The bureaucratic response is to recommend “attribution science” to distinguish human-caused warming from natural fluctuations. It is a pathetic attempt at categorization, as if labeling the cause of the explosion will stop the ground from bursting beneath your feet.

  Community Health: The Human Cost of the Leviathan

  Goal 4, “Improve Community Health and Well-Being,” moves from the geological to the personal, though the tone remains chillingly clinical. The statistics are a grim post-mortem of the human cost of living on the front lines of a melting world.

  Alaska’s suicide rate between 2012 and 2017 was the first or second highest in the nation. Among those suicide decedents from 2015 to 2017, forensic toxicology indicated a 64 percent increase in opioid use.

  The government’s response to this crisis is a classic exercise in bureaucratic retreat. Faced with a “critical shortage of providers,” the Leviathan pivots toward “telemedicine” and “Community Online Databases.” When all 20 of Alaska’s Native languages are classified as “threatened” or “critically endangered,” the Commission recommends monitoring their extinction via an online database. This is the ultimate retreat—healing a dying culture through a screen because the state lacks the “mental health workforce capacity” to actually show up in person.

  “Language is healing.”

  This quote, from a participant at the Alaska Native Collaborative Hub for Research on Resilience, stands in sharp, tragic opposition to the cold data of “Suicide Surveillance Models” and “Practice-based collaborative care.” It highlights a holistic view of health, emphasizing culture and subsistence, the very things the late Mary C. Pete championed, and that the government is fundamentally designed to ignore.

  The Perpetuity of the Machine

  The USARC document ultimately reveals a self-perpetuating machine of interagency committees and research initiatives designed to maintain the status quo.

  From fiscal years 2011 through 2017, nine agencies spent approximately $200 million on offshore oil spill research, involving over 100 projects per year. The landscape is a thicket of useless acronyms: IARPC, CMTS, ADAC, USGS, NOAA.

  Each of these entities is tasked with duties that are fundamentally passive. They exist to “recommend,” “assist,” “facilitate,” and “review.” These are the verbs of a machine that has no intention of acting. They are designed to process information, not to halt the “global nosedive” of migratory birds or the planet-wide wave of extinctions projected for shorebirds.

  North American shorebird populations have already halved since the 1970s; the spoon-billed sandpiper is down to a few hundred breeding pairs while the committees discuss “simplified frameworks” for assessment.

  The Commission’s final argument is a plea for “evidence-based decisions.” Yet the evidence they have collected shows that an “ice-dependent ecosystem” is losing its ice and that the ground is literally exploding. The machine continues to generate goals and objectives for a 1,000-day window, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is trying to manage a planetary explosion with blueprints drawn in 1984.

  The evidence is clear: the ground is gone, the birds are falling from the sky, and the government is still waiting for a updated report.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  ---

  2026.04.17

• The $1.6 Million Bubble: How Solventum’s “Low-Tech” Leak Fueled the Dragon’s Microchips

  A Masterclass in Bureaucratic Irony

  In the high-stakes theater of global semiconductor warfare, one might imagine the U.S. export enforcement apparatus as a sleek, AI-driven hunter using satellite imagery and signals intelligence to intercept illicit cargo. The reality, as  Solventum Corporation  recently discovered, is far more mundane and deeply ironic.

  Solventum wasn’t brought down by a high-tech sting operation or a double agent in a trench coat. Instead, they were caught because their own logistics partner filled out the paperwork with “incriminating” honesty.

  On  January 8, 2024 , the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) essentially tapped  Solventum  on the shoulder and pointed at a shipping label. A U.S. freight forwarder, acting with the kind of clerical transparency that gives compliance officers nightmares, filed Electronic Export Information (EEI) that explicitly listed a restricted entity as the “Ultimate Consignee.”

  It is the ultimate bureaucratic dark comedy: a million-dollar enforcement action triggered not by a failure of security, but by a failure of the “logistics shell game” to remain properly obscured. In the eyes of the state, the only thing worse than a lie is a truth you forgot to hide.

  EAR99: The “Nothing” That Is Actually Everything

  To the uninitiated, the term EAR99 sounds like a bureaucratic shrug, a “basket category” for items that don’t merit a specific spot on the Commerce Control List. In the cynical calculus of national security, however, “low-level” tech becomes a crisis the moment it touches a microchip.

  Solventum’s offending cargo consisted of Liqui-Cel Membrane Contactors. On paper, these are just industrial tools for moving gas in and out of liquids. But these aren’t just filters; they are critical sub-components that make the whole machine of Communist China run. The Leviathan’s logic is simple: if a piece of equipment removes a bubble from a liquid stream that eventually washes a microchip, that equipment is a weapon.

  The Anatomy of a Semiconductor “Bubble-Remover”:

  • Precision Control:  Regulates gas concentrations in liquid streams, a non-negotiable requirement for microelectronics production.
  • OEM Integration:  Typically integrated into larger, complex fluid processing systems manufactured by Original Equipment Manufacturers.
  • Purity Mandate:  Ensures the ultra-pure environment required for the fabrication of advanced semiconductors.

  The Players: Aliases, Intermediaries, and Shell Games

  The movement of these items relied on a familiar cast of intermediaries and a light dusting of corporate aliases. The transactions were structured as “routed export transactions,” a maneuver where the foreign buyer takes the lead on logistics. However, in the regulatory world, delegation is not absolution. As the  U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI), Solventum remained legally tethered to the cargo long after it left their warehouse.

  Dramatis Personae

  • Solventum Corporation: The Minnesota-based manufacturer. Following a divestiture on  April 1, 2024, this entity became the “corporate reincarnation” responsible for the sins of its legacy division.
  • SMIC South (Semiconductor Manufacturing South China Corporation): A restricted heavyweight on the Entity List. In internal documents, they were thinly veiled under the aliases  “Shanghai SMSC Project”  or  “SMSC.”
  • NSI (Ningbo Semiconductor International Corporation): Another restricted party that snagged a shipment before Solventum bothered to check the updated Entity List.
  • Company 1 (Hong Kong) & Company 2 (China): The “Foreign Principal Parties in Interest” (FPPIs) who placed the orders and essentially walked Solventum into a trap of its own making.
  • U.S. Freight Forwarder 1: The unwitting whistleblower. As the agent for the foreign buyers, they filed the EEI that handed the BIS the evidence on a silver platter.

  The scale of this “logistics shell game” was meticulously documented. Charge 1 involved 87 units destined for  SMIC South, valued at  $931,355. Charge 2 covered 9 units sent to NSI valued at $90,893.

  The Anatomy of a Failure: Knowledge vs. Action

  The most damning part of the government’s case is the demolition of the “oops” narrative. Solventum  cannot claim they were unaware of the rules because they had played by them before. The company had previously applied for and received four separate licenses to ship these exact items to various SMIC  entities. They knew the fence was there because they had asked for permission to climb it four times already.

  The timeline proves “Knowledge” under its strictest legal definition: the willful avoidance of facts.

  • November 24, 2022: Solventum’s sales personnel in China were already using the alias “Shanghai SMSC Project” on internal forms. The “knowledge” existed long before the regulatory hammer fell.
  • January 10, 2023: A purchase order for 93 units arrived from  Company 1, explicitly using the “SMSC” shorthand.
  • November 16, 2023: The BIS partially suspended Solventum’s existing licenses for SMIC South. This was the flashing red light.
  • December 2023 – January 2024: Despite the suspension, Solventum transferred 87 units to the freight forwarder anyway.The company’s claim that it failed to “timely identify” the transaction is a transparent bit of bureaucratic theater.

  It was only after the BIS intervened on January 8, 2024, that Solventum suddenly found the resolve to act, intercepting 23 units that were still sitting on a U.S. dock. It was a token gesture of compliance performed while the investigators were already in the room.

  The “So What?”: A $1.6 Million Entry Fee

  The saga ends with a settlement that feels less like a punishment and more like the cost of doing business. By the time the April 1, 2024 divestiture was complete, the new Solventum  entity had inherited the liability of this “unintentional” incompetence.

  Realizing the game was up, the company began “singing to the feds” by assisting the Office of Export Enforcement and filing a Voluntary Self Disclosure to avoid the nuclear option of a total export ban.

  The Penalty Math

  • Charge 1 (SMIC South):  $931,355
  • Charge 2 (NSI):  $90,893
  • Total Value of Unauthorized Shipments:  $1,022,248
  • Total Civil Penalty:  $1,600,000
  • The Ultimatum:  45 days to pay the Department of Commerce or face a one-year ban on all export privileges.In the end, the Leviathan was satisfied with its pound of flesh.

  The $1.6 million fine will disappear into the coffers, the microchips will continue to be produced using the “low-tech” contractors already in China, and the bureaucratic machine will return to its slumber, waiting for the next time an honest freight forwarder accidentally tells the truth on a form.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  ---

  2026.04.16

• The Leviathan’s Ledger: Munitions, Midnight Markets, and the Tope Shark’s Last Stand

  Wednesday, April 15, 2026, arrived with the same rhythmic, industrial thrum that characterizes the daily output of the United States Government Publishing Office.

  On this particular morning, Volume 91, No. 72 of the Federal Register was birthed into the archives as a 253-page compendium of administrative minutiae that functions as the cold, beating heart of the American state.

  To the uninitiated, it is a sterile record of “procedural regulations” and “notices to the public.” To the seasoned observer, it is the Leviathan’s ledger, a document of profound strategic irony where the state simultaneously manages the creeping extinction of a deep-sea predator and the multi-billion-dollar financing of global kinetic violence.

  Authenticated by the seal of the National Archives and Records Administration, the document carries the motto  Littera Scripta Manet, or the written word remains. It is a chilling sentiment when one realizes that the written word is often all that remains of the stability and the species that the government purports to protect.

  Up In Arms

  Here, the Office of the Federal Register performs its role as the official serial publication of a superpower that treats the font requirements on a $190 helicopter emergency exit label with the same dispassionate, bureaucratic gravity it applies to the distribution of 500-pound general-purpose bombs.

  The architecture of global stability, as deconstructed through the Department of Defense’s recent arms notifications, reveals a vision of peace built entirely upon the machinery of high-tech attrition. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, invoking the strategic “logic” of the Arms Export Control Act, has recently authorized a staggering influx of weaponry to the Middle East and Europe, framing these transfers as essential “forces for political stability.”

  At the summit of this recent spree is a $9 billion transaction for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The deal involves 730 PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC–3) Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors, manufactured by Lockheed-Martin. These are described with clinical admiration as “hit-to-kill” kinetic interceptors, featuring upgraded guidance software and modified lethality enhancers.

  The bureaucratic theatrics are on full display as the Pentagon asserts that this massive depletion of sophisticated hardware will have “no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness.” This $9 billion intercept is merely one entry in a ledger defined by bureaucratized violence. It sits alongside a $6.9 billion munitions package for Israel that includes 10,000 BLU–111 500-pound general-purpose bombs, and a notification for Belgium concerning the acquisition of eleven additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

  While the initial draft of history might lose itself in the numbers, the reality is that the total Belgian F-35 program has now swelled to an estimated $9.83 billion. It is a world where security is measured in “all-up-rounds” and “unitary high explosive” missile pods, exported with the sterile precision of a grocery receipt.

  Nothing to See Here

  While the government exports this machinery of stability abroad, it is busy “modernizing” the domestic landscape of risk through a series of deregulatory maneuvers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has finalized a rule that significantly alters the mandatory hearing process for reactor licensing, citing the mandates of the ADVANCE Act of 2024 and Executive Order 14300. In an exercise of pure regulatory theater, the NRC is now providing “increased flexibility” by effectively severing the historical link between public hearings and the actual issuance of a license.

  By removing specific safety and environmental findings from the presiding officer’s requirements, the agency ensures that public oversight is no longer on the “critical path” to license issuance. This drive for “efficiency” is a calculated meltdown of regulatory friction, designed to shorten review times by shedding the very findings that once justified the state’s permit. This “streamlining” of nuclear risk stands in biting contrast to the Federal Aviation Administration’s simultaneous obsession with the microscopic.

  Label the Issue

  While the NRC washes its hands of mandatory environmental findings, the FAA is mandating $190 labels for helicopter emergency exits across 1,213 aircraft and demanding repetitive $1,955 inspections of fuselage frame foot joint connections for a mere twenty-two regional jets. The Leviathan is terrified of a loose fuselage joint in a regional commuter but remains perfectly comfortable “flexing” the mandatory safety findings for a nuclear reactor.

  S-E-Caesar’s Palace

  This appetite for streamlined risk finds a perfect mirror in the financial markets, where the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is facilitating the transformation of the stock market into a 23-hour retail casino.

  Under the new “23/5” trading model, exchanges like Nasdaq and Cboe EDGX are opening “Night Sessions” from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. ET, ostensibly to satisfy the demand for “market accessibility” from retail investors in the Asia Pacific region. However, this midnight casino operates in a shadow world where the Fedwire Funds Service is closed and most banks are dark, leaving investors to navigate increased counterparty and settlement risks.

  The SEC acknowledges with a bureaucratic shrug that these sessions will be characterized by lower liquidity, higher volatility, and wider spreads. Even more damning is the fact that the standard regulatory infrastructure and volatility control mechanisms that protect the public during the day are conspicuously absent during these nocturnal hours. To join this game, market participants must purchase separate, dedicated ports, the fees for which are hidden in “subsequent rule filings”.

  To Grow or Not To Grow

  This active facilitation of a global gambling floor for retail investors is occurring even as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) preens over a $750,000 settlement with TruHeight, a company that peddled “height-growth” supplements for children.

  The FTC chased down $750,000 in fake reviews, a sum that constitutes a rounding error in the Saudi missile deal, to protect parents from the fraud of a six-inch growth spurt. The state maintains a posture of hyper-vigilance against the charlatans of “fake growth” while building the actual infrastructure for “real risk” in a 23-hour retail investor casino that lacks basic volatility controls.

  Tope of the Food Chain

  The final absurdity, the peak of the Leviathan’s ledger, is revealed in its sudden, agonizing concern for the Tope Shark. Amidst the shipping of 10,000 bombs and the streamlining of nuclear hearings, the National Marine Fisheries Service has dedicated fifty pages of the Federal Register to the plight of  Galeorhinus galeus.

  The populations in the Southwest Atlantic and Southern Africa are being proposed for listing as threatened, and the data is a testament to biological tragedy. In Argentina, the Tope Shark has seen a 99.3% reduction in abundance over three generations. In Africa, the population has collapsed to a mere 10% of its carrying capacity.

  The ledger describes the “deficient” enforcement in Brazil and the lack of catch limits in South Africa with a level of detail that borders on the fetishistic. Most poignant is the fact that the African population is physically trapped; as equatorial waters warm, these sharks are unable to shift their distribution poleward because the African continent simply ends. They have nowhere to go.

  The Tope Shark, with its three-year reproductive cycle and its slow intrinsic rate of increase, is a metaphor for a natural world that cannot keep pace with the “hit-to-kill” agility of modern industrial capitalism.

  The paradox is complete: the government spends dozens of pages mourning a shark that is physically unable to escape its environment, while simultaneously “streamlining” the hearings that might protect our own environment from nuclear mishaps.

  Wrapping Up

  We live under a status quo that monitors $190 helicopter labels with sterile, surgical precision while authorizing the $9 billion machinery of war for a Major non-NATO Ally. The Leviathan knows the exact cost of a fuselage inspection but has lost the ability to value the life it claims to govern.

  As Volume 91, No. 72 of the Federal Register is filed away, it leaves a permanent record of a system that is impeccably organized and fundamentally insane. It is a world where we count the sharks as they disappear, documenting their inability to shift poleward with scientific exactitude, even as we ship the very bombs that will ensure the written word remains the only thing left of the stability we once claimed to export.

  The ledger remains, a testament to a state that is hyper-vigilant about fake height reviews, but perfectly comfortable with the very real extinction of everything else.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  ---

  2026.04.16

• The $1 Trillion Wake-Up Call: Why the U.S. Military is Racing to Rebuild

  Executive Metadata Block

  • Target Reading Time: 7 minutes
  • Subject: U.S. National Security Strategy & FY 2026 Defense Budget Realignment
  • Core Thesis: Facing a unified “Axis of Aggressors” and a hollowed-out industrial base, the United States is executing a high-stakes pivot toward a trillion-dollar defense paradigm—marking its most significant security shift since 1945.

  ---

  The 1945 Comparison

  For thirty-five years, the United States cashed a “peace dividend” born from the collapse of the Soviet Union, operating under the assumption of permanent geographic isolation and military overmatch. That holiday from history is over. We are currently navigating a historical inflection point described by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy as the most “serious and challenging” since the end of World War II.

  The luxury of gradual modernization has evaporated. While Washington spent decades optimized for counter-insurgency and regional stability, our adversaries spent that time refining the tools of peer-level destruction. We have arrived at a moment of strategic reckoning: the U.S. must now choose between a massive, trillion-dollar reconstruction of its “Arsenal of Democracy” or the managed decline of American influence in a world redefined by hostile, nuclear-armed powers.

  We Are Currently Unprepared for a Major War

  The findings of the RAND Corporation and the Commission on the National Defense Strategy are stripped of bureaucratic euphemism: the U.S. military is no longer positioned to guarantee victory in a high-intensity conflict. The “pacing challenge” of China is no longer a future-tense projection; it is a present-day reality where Beijing has effectively negated American power projection in the Western Pacific through two decades of laser-focused investment.

  RAND estimates China’s true defense spending at upwards of $711 billion—a figure leveraged specifically to dismantle the U.S. military’s technological edge. As the balance of power shifts, the margin for error has vanished.

  “The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.”

  The Era of the Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Has Arrived

  To bridge this gap, the White House has proposed a paradigm-shifting FY 2026 budget that integrates mandatory and discretionary spending into a single topline surpassing $1 trillion. Central to this is the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (P.L. 119-21), which provides $150 billion in mandatory funding designed to bypass the traditional, sluggish appropriations process.

  However, this budget has sparked a civil war over the definition of modern hardware. The Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) reveals a deep friction: while the Executive Branch prioritizes “manufacturability,” unmanned platforms, and the $23 billion “Golden Dome” missile defense system, the Senate’s NDAA (S. 2296) seeks to add $32.1 billion to protect “status quo systems.”

  The Administration views this as a strategic error, arguing that Congress is treating the $150 billion mandatory infusion as “extra” cash to subsidize legacy systems that are no longer survivable in a modern fight, rather than as the new base for a modernized force.

  The Convergence of a New “Axis of Aggressors”

  The strategic landscape is no longer a collection of isolated regional threats, but a coordinated “Axis of Aggressors.” Senate Report 119-39 identifies a quartet of central actors—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—that are increasingly sharing resources, intelligence, and weaponry to overstretch American influence across multiple theaters.

  This is a synergistic threat. Russia is currently dedicating 29% of its federal budget to national defense as it reconstitutes its military, while North Korea and Iran serve as industrial adjuncts. The convergence of these powers means the U.S. can no longer plan for a “one-war” scenario; any conflict in the Indo-Pacific will likely be influenced, or directly fueled, by the resources of the entire axis.

  Warfare is Evolving Faster Than the Bureaucracy

  The traditional aircraft carrier’s psychological dominance is facing a lethal challenge from below. “Operation Spiderweb”—the Ukrainian campaign that used over 100 first-person view (FPV) drones to strike deep into sovereign Russian territory—has signaled the death of the old acquisition model. In response, the Pentagon is attempting a radical technological surge:

  • Contested Logistics and Right-to-Repair: Section 836 (Right-to-Repair) is no longer a consumer rights issue; it is a tactical necessity. In an environment where Ukraine can strike five airbases in a single night, the U.S. military’s inability to repair its own software and hardware in the field without contractor intervention is a catastrophic vulnerability.
  • The AI Rollout: Five out of six military branches have elevated “GenAI.mil,” with ChatGPT now available to 3 million military users to compress decision-making cycles.
  • Technical Edge: The Navy is moving to field the future X-band radar (FXR), funded by $11 billion in Spectrum Relocation Fund dollars, to reclaim the advantage in horizon and surface search.

  The Internal War Over the “Warrior Ethos”

  The FY 2026 NDAA signals a decisive cultural and constitutional pivot. Section 920 of the Senate Report explicitly mandates the elimination of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) provisions, redirecting the Department of Defense toward a singular focus on lethality.

  This shift, however, has triggered a significant constitutional standoff over Article II authority. The Administration’s SAP strongly objects to legislative “prohibitions” that it views as unconstitutional infringements on the Commander-in-Chief.

  Specifically, the five-day notice requirement for removing Judge Advocates General (Section 502) and naming restrictions on assets in Virginia (Section 349) are seen as attempts to micromanage the Executive’s control over the military.

  This friction extends to technical governance: the Administration opposes Section 1536, which would grant the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) technical authority over “system-level architectures,” potentially undermining the Direct Reporting Program Manager (DRPM) tasked with the Golden Dome’s high-priority deployment.

  The Question for the Next Decade

  The legislative and financial engine of the American war machine is finally turning, from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to the massive reinvestment in domestic shipbuilding. Yet, a trillion dollars may not be enough to overcome three decades of industrial atrophy.

  The Administration’s opposition to Section 874 (duty-free entry) highlights the core dilemma: if the U.S. continues to bypass domestic tariffs for defense procurement, it risks undermining the very domestic capacity-building the budget is meant to fund.

  The question is no longer whether we can afford to win, but whether our atrophied factories can still build the tools of victory.

  ---

  • Banned for Life, Still Trading: The FTC’s Four-Year Fight to Keep Martin Shkreli Out of Pharma
  • Medicare Froze Lab Cuts for Six Years. Now CMS Says It Can Save $1 Billion a Year.
  • The Furnace Broke. The Recommendations Didn’t.
  • Federal Register Watch: October 13, 2026
  • The VA Hospital That Kept Failing the Same Inspection

  ---

  2026.04.10