The Pentagon FORTRESS plan has acquired a number, and the number is what makes it news: 90 days. Under a standard set out in internal Pentagon documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, every major military installation in the continental United States would be expected to sustain essential operations entirely on its own for at least 90 days — its own electricity, its own water, its own fuel, its own communications — if a major war knocked out the civilian systems those bases quietly depend on every day. Portable nuclear reactors, large-scale battery storage and microgrids that can disconnect a base from the civilian grid are the tools named in the plan. Strategic reserves of munitions, fuel, critical minerals, electronics, spare parts and medical supplies are the stockpiles. And the comparison now circulating in Washington is an uncomfortable one: while the Pentagon plans for 90 days, the advice given to American households by FEMA's Ready.gov is still to be ready for three.
Track it live: follow the wars and conflicts tracker for the live conflicts driving the Pentagon's planning.
What the documents say
Fox News Digital reported on October 25 that the 90-day standard sits inside FORTRESS — short for Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy, Supply, and Survivability — the initiative Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled on September 30 in his State of the Force address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. Hegseth framed it then in deliberately stark terms. "We are launching Fortress America, a national insurance policy for the American homeland," he said. "Every major military installation in America is going to generate its own power, independent of the civilian grid. If an adversary takes down the grid by cyber attack, by sabotage, or by any means, our bases stay lit, our aircraft keep flying, our command centers never go dark." A memo issued the same day ordered a dedicated FORTRESS America Program Office to be stood up within 30 days under the Undersecretary for Acquisition and Sustainment.
The 90-day figure reported this weekend goes further than the September announcement. It is not only about electricity. On the documents' account, a major installation cut off by war would have to keep water flowing, fuel available and communications working for a full quarter of a year, while global supply chains — the ones that deliver everything from artillery shells to blood supplies — could be broken. Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell, who helped formulate the initiative, explained the logic to Fox News in the bluntest terms in the plan. "Power is combat now. Without electricity, you lose communications, water, logistics, assembly lines and just basic military command structures," Parnell said. "We don't want to rely on standard civilian municipal infrastructure to run our national defense. We just simply can't. It's an intolerable risk."
The assumption being thrown out
Underneath the engineering sits a doctrinal shift, and Parnell stated it plainly: the Pentagon no longer believes the Atlantic and Pacific oceans protect the American homeland in a major war. Planners now assume a future conflict would be fought on multiple fronts at once, that adversaries — Russia, China and Iran are the states named across the preparedness reporting — would use cyberattacks, sabotage and strikes on critical infrastructure to hobble US forces before they ever left their bases, and that supply chains running through those same adversaries' economies would snap. FORTRESS answers with depth at home: reserves sized to wartime burn rates, at least two qualified supply or production pathways for every critical item so no single factory loss can halt operations, and a Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network that would pre-identify civilian factories able to convert to defense production, with contracts and conversion procedures agreed before any crisis.
Why this matters
The vulnerability FORTRESS targets is real, measurable and old. A 2021 Department of Commerce report, cited in coverage of the plan, found that US military bases draw roughly 99 percent of their electricity from the commercial grid — including installations that host some of the most sensitive capabilities in the arsenal. That dependence has already failed in peacetime: when Winter Storm Uri forced rolling blackouts across Texas in February 2021, most of the state's military installations lost power for days, and that was weather, not an enemy. The 2021 ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, which shut down fuel deliveries across the US East Coast, showed how a single piece of civilian infrastructure can be held hostage without a shot fired. US agencies have since warned — in a February 2024 joint advisory from CISA, the NSA and the FBI — that Chinese state-sponsored hackers known as Volt Typhoon had burrowed into US communications, energy, transportation and water networks, positioning themselves to disrupt essential services in a future conflict. FORTRESS is, in effect, the Pentagon conceding that those warnings describe its own bases.
The second reason this matters is the gap it exposes between what governments now ask of their militaries and what they ask of their citizens. The Pentagon's emerging standard is 90 days. Britain's Be Ready campaign, launched on October 22, asks households to stock three days of supplies — three litres of water per person per day, food that needs no cooking, torches, power banks and cash. The European Commission's Preparedness Union Strategy asks the EU's citizens for 72 hours. FEMA's guidance to Americans is also 72 hours. The military standard is thirty times the civilian one, and the reason is not that officials expect civilians to need less; it is that bases are being planned as islands that must keep fighting, while households are being planned as a population that must merely hold on until help arrives. Readers weighing the wider pattern — governments across the West now telling citizens to prepare — can see it in Signal Post News's coverage of how Europe is preparing its citizens for war and Defence Secretary Wes Streeting's warning that Britain has a little over 1,000 days to be ready.
The nuclear piece: microreactors move from experiment to infrastructure
The most concrete hardware in the plan is already under contract. Through the Army's Janus Program, run with the Defense Innovation Unit, the Pentagon in August awarded up to $2.2 billion to five companies to own, construct and operate nuclear microreactors at five installations: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; BWXT Advanced Technologies at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood, Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning, Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum, New York. With private investment added, the Army expects more than 20 microreactors across defense installations, and its target is a first reactor producing usable power by September 30, 2028. Microreactors matter to FORTRESS because diesel generators — the current backup at most bases — measure their endurance in days of fuel deliveries. A reactor measures its endurance in years. For a standard written in 90-day blocks, that difference is the whole argument.
What critics and the fine print say
Three cautions belong on the record. First, the status of the 90-day standard itself: it is drawn from internal documents reported by Fox News Digital, and the Pentagon has not publicly issued it as a final, funded requirement. TWZ, in its detailed analysis of the plan, noted it was unclear whether Parnell had explicitly confirmed the 90-day figure, and Defense News US likewise reported the standard has not been publicly confirmed as an adopted department-wide mandate. A senior defense official told reporters on October 20 that the department is still assessing the needs of roughly 500 installations in the continental United States; no overall cost estimate and no completion date has been published. Second, the scale: Air & Space Forces Magazine has reported that fully meeting a standard like this could take decades and cost tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions — against a backdrop of long-standing underinvestment in base infrastructure. Third, much of FORTRESS builds on work already under way rather than starting from zero: the Army set a goal in 2022 for every base to have its own microgrid by 2035, and the Air Force's installation plan targeted new microgrids at 16 bases by fiscal 2030. Microreactors, meanwhile, carry their own unresolved arguments about safety, waste and proliferation that no Pentagon memo settles. And one point both Washington and London have been careful to repeat applies here too: neither government says a war is imminent, and neither presents its preparedness drive as a response to a specific warning. These are insurance policies being bought in public, at prices that signal how seriously the risk is now taken.
What happens next
The test of FORTRESS will not be a speech; it will be a budget line and a construction schedule. Watch three things. The FORTRESS America Program Office, ordered into existence within 30 days of September 30, has to turn a standard into per-base engineering requirements for some 500 installations — the moment real numbers attach to the 90-day goal, Congress gets its say. The Janus reactors have a hard public deadline, September 30, 2028, for first power; hitting or missing it will say more about the plan's credibility than any briefing. And the civilian side of the ledger is now visibly out of step with the military one: if the Pentagon concludes that three months of isolation is a plausible planning case for its bases, the question of why households are still told to prepare for three days will keep being asked — in Britain, where the Be Ready campaign is already a political argument, and increasingly in the United States as well. The oceans, the Pentagon has decided, are no longer a plan. What replaces them is being built, base by base, reactor by reactor — and for the first time, it has a number of days attached.