VALAR WATCH
Key findingsTheir claims, annotatedEvidenceTake action
374 facts · 512 sources · updated 2026-09-30

Fact plan-012

newrecordconfirmed The military tie is one airlift: Valar is not among the Army's five Janus reactor firms or DIU's eight eligible vendors
2026-08-26 · plan-012 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Army, Defense Innovation Unit, U.S. Air Force · Army Janus program, combined ceiling for five other vendors (not Valar): $2,200,000,000

Valar's Castle Country page says Ward 250 flew to Utah on three C-17s 'in partnership with the Department of Energy and the Department of War' (Operation Windlord, 15 February 2026; orig-030, orig-027). No Defense Department contract with Valar is on the federal spending record (gov-027), and who paid for the flights is reported, not documented (fund-013). The Defense Innovation Unit's list of companies eligible for its Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program (10 April 2025) names eight firms (Antares, BWXT, General Atomics, Kairos, Oklo, Radiant, Westinghouse, X-energy), not Valar. The Army's Janus program (26 August 2026) picked five vendors for five bases, up to $2.2 billion combined (Antares, BWXT, General Atomics, Radiant, Westinghouse), not Valar. Valar's job board lists military technical experience as a qualification or preference in several posts, and one post asks for the ability to obtain any required DOE or NRC access or clearance (plan-011), but no military customer, contract or site for a Valar reactor was found as of 29 September 2026.

In plain termsThe Air Force flew Valar's reactor (without fuel) to Utah, which made headlines. But when the military actually chose companies to build reactors on its bases, Valar was not picked, either in 2025 or in August 2026. So far the military connection is a flight, not a contract.
verified 2026-09-29: Verify pass 2026-09-29: Army release re-read: five vendors, five installations, up to $2.2 billion, no Valar. DIU list re-read: eight firms, no Valar. Castle Country quote holds. Fixed the job-post wording: only one post asks about clearance; the other 'clearance' hits are mechanical clearances. Correction 2026-09-29 (wording review): re-reading process note moved to the internal log.

In tabs: plans, government, operations · file plans_ops