News
US military uses genetic engineering to develop “living tripwires” for submarines
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is investing $45 million dollars in a tri-service effort that focuses on synthetic biology (SynBio) for use in military technologies. This interdisciplinary scientific field primarily involves altering the genetic makeup of organisms to achieve specific behavior, and the military wants in on its potential applications. By uniting SynBio experts within the US Air Force, Army, and Navy, DoD officials hope to develop serious capabilities for use throughout the military’s branches.
The long form name of this project is the Applied Research for the Advancement of Science and Technology Priorities Program on Synthetic Biology for Military Environments, and the mission is obvious from its title alone. While still in the early research stages, engineering organisms could provide numerous tools with direct defense applications.
For example, organisms engineered to change their colors based on their environment could be used as living camouflage, and medications infused with protective microbes could help service member survival in tough conditions. However, it’s perhaps the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington DC that may hold the relevant interest in developing SynBio capabilities due to the marine environment potentials it holds.
Above the water, engineered self-repairing organisms could spell out self-healing paint for ships and aircraft carriers, cutting billions from the US Navy’s fleet maintenance costs. Even more important for defense needs, though, are the modified organisms that could help the branch’s deep water operations, i.e., submarines. By modifying the environmental response of naturally present organisms, naval defense could have a new type of radar at their disposal.
An abundant seawater-native bacteria with “clinging” properties called Marinobacter is a prime candidate for the DoD’s purposes. Specifically, the organism could be genetically engineered to react to certain types of molecules that aren’t naturally occurring in the ocean, such as diesel fuel or human DNA, and then spread into targeted environments for monitoring. This reaction could perhaps be the release of an electron, thus creating an electrical signal which nearby drones could pick up and transmit where necessary. The ability to detect non-friendly submarines is the key capability the researchers are aiming to achieve, the bacteria acting as “living tripwires.”
The field of synthetic biology is not new in the civilian world. In fact, consumer products currently exist based on it, such as bio fuels, soaps, cleaners, food additives, and a variety of industrial and manufacturing products. One of the challenges of bringing this type of technology to the field for military use is making the modified organisms tough enough to endure the environments needed.
“If you want to move a biological bio-based sensor to the field you try to ruggedize those organisms. You try to protect them…[and]…increase their longevity in these harsh environments,” explained Dimitra Stratis-Cullum, the lead of U.S. Army Research Laboratory biomaterials team, in a recent forum hosted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
The current genetic research being conducted in SynBio has demonstrated that the genes of E. coli bacteria can be manipulated to express properties relevant to the larger goal of underwater sensing. However, the significant differences between the E. Coli and the types of organisms natural to deep water environments, such as Marinobacter, can be compared to the differences between mice and humans.
The initial point really is to either prove that the desired outcome is possible or collect data to assist in that effort. In other words, there’s still a lot of work to be done, but making the effort a priority, such as what the Navy’s done with its “Task Force Ocean” mission aimed at strengthening partnerships within academia and the private sector regarding Navy-relevant ocean science, is a focused step in the right direction for the military to achieve its goals in SynBio.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
