The executive order says foreign supply of bulk-power system electric equipment presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security, foreign policy and the economy. It authorizes restrictions on certain risky foreign-produced equipment and directs federal review of existing equipment and dependencies.
DOJ and FBI announced court-authorized seizure of QScan and QTRouter infrastructure operated by a PRC state-sponsored hacking group. DOJ says targeted networks included the Department of Energy, NASA, Federal Reserve, DOJ, HHS, NIH, the U.S. Senate, power companies and other critical infrastructure.
The electric grid uses giant machines and computers. If important parts come from a country that could secretly control or stop them, America has a problem. The new order says the government should find risky foreign parts, block dangerous new ones, and replace or secure old ones when needed.
This is a supply-chain and operational-technology security order. It reaches transformers, inverters, battery systems, industrial controls, relays, software, firmware, maintenance and remote-access capabilities. Implementation must balance national-security risk against reliability, replacement availability and continuity of service.
Creator reporting: Robert Gouveia Esq., Aug. 30, 2026. His headline/editorial framing links the grid emergency and the botnet disruption. Official White House and DOJ/FBI records above establish the underlying government actions.
My standard: a national emergency should produce a measurable rebuild plan, not just a declaration.
Should federally supported grid projects require U.S.-made critical equipment when domestic capacity exists? Should utilities publicly disclose aggregate foreign-dependency percentages without revealing sensitive site details? Should Congress require annual national-grid cyber and supply-chain readiness reporting?
A creator's warning becomes a Builder-in-Chief question: what should America build so a grid emergency does not become a national catastrophe?
Creator: Coop Creator opinions ≠ campaign facts
The 2013 Metcalf substation attack seriously damaged grid equipment and became an important physical-security case.
Transformer manufacturing, long lead times, aging equipment, cyber threats and physical security are genuine national reliability issues.
Dramatic nationwide-outage scenarios, precise outage durations and allegations of government complicity should be treated as claims unless primary evidence establishes them.
Expand domestic manufacturing, standardization, modular designs and regional spares.
Hospitals, water systems, emergency communications and critical services should be able to island when necessary.
Layered protection, detection, rapid response and redundancy—without publishing sensitive targeting details.
Segment operational technology, require strong authentication and continuous monitoring.
Use defensive inspection drones for storm damage, heat anomalies, vegetation and rapid repair assessment.
Apprenticeships for linemen, electricians, welders and transformer manufacturing.
Major new loads should disclose expected demand and fund necessary grid upgrades.
Model load, equipment condition, weather and recovery scenarios while protecting sensitive details.
Publish understandable resilience scorecards, restoration performance and investment outcomes.
The grid is like roads carrying electricity. If one important road breaks, another should be ready. We also need spare parts and trained workers.
Resilience combines redundancy, strategic spares, microgrids, distributed energy, storage, physical hardening, OT cybersecurity, workforce capacity and rehearsed restoration.
Coop says he found archived extremist material attributed to people using the names “Redstone Killers” and “Laser Hawk.” This module does not claim those identities are independently verified, that they represent a known organized group, or that they were involved in the Metcalf attack.
America’s electric grid was not built by one president, one company, or one federal agency. It developed over more than a century through private utilities, municipal and public utilities, rural electric cooperatives, federal power agencies, manufacturers, engineers, skilled trades, and government-financed infrastructure.
Campaign wording: generations of American workers, utilities, cooperatives, engineers, manufacturers, and public programs built the interconnected system Americans rely on today.
The modern concern is not that foreign countries originally built America’s grid. The concern is that important replacement and expansion equipment can depend on foreign components, materials, and manufacturing capacity, while domestic production is limited for some critical categories.
Motta 2028 position: reduce strategic dependence on overseas supply chains for equipment required to keep the lights on.
For federally supported grid modernization, Motta 2028 proposes increasingly strong domestic-content requirements for transformers, electrical steel, conductors, breakers, relays, substation components, controls, power electronics, replacement parts, storage, and microgrid hardware—paired with transparent temporary waivers where no practical U.S. supplier exists.
America built a lot of its electric system with American workers and companies. Today, some important replacement parts come from far away. If a storm or emergency breaks something important, we should be able to make the replacement parts here instead of waiting on another country.
Grid security includes supply-chain resilience. A domestic manufacturing strategy should combine measurable U.S.-content thresholds, domestic final assembly, strategic inventories, greater equipment standardization, qualified-source requirements, workforce expansion, and public reporting of foreign dependencies.
Design it here. Make it here. Train workers here. Maintain it here. Keep the critical supply chain here.
SUPPORTED IN PART When the creator argues that America should produce grid equipment domestically, the underlying supply-chain concern is supported by federal grid-supply-chain work. But the historical claim should be phrased carefully: America’s grid was developed domestically through a mixed system of utilities, cooperatives, public agencies, manufacturers, and workers; today’s issue is strategic dependence in portions of the modern equipment supply chain.
Motta 2028 proposal: build the next American grid in America to the maximum practical extent, with measurable domestic-content rules, strategic spares, standardization, and transparent exceptions.
Fusion tries to make energy by joining tiny atomic nuclei together. Most fusion ideas can release fast neutrons that make reactor walls harder to protect. “Aneutronic” fusion means choosing reactions that are designed to make much less neutron radiation. One famous idea uses a proton and boron-11. If scientists can make it work efficiently, much of the energy could come out as electrically charged particles that may be easier to turn directly into electricity.
The hard part: the fuel is much harder to fuse than the fuel used in today’s leading fusion experiments. Scientists still have to prove that a practical machine can make more useful energy than the whole system consumes.
Aneutronic fusion refers to fusion reactions selected to minimize neutron production. Proton-boron-11 (p-11B) is a leading example because its primary reaction products are charged alpha particles. That creates the theoretical possibility of direct energy conversion and reduced neutron shielding/activation compared with deuterium-tritium systems.
NASA has studied aneutronic concepts for spacecraft and identifies potential advantages in mass, shielding, and direct conversion. DOE also recognizes p-11B and deuterium-helium-3 as aneutronic research pathways, while emphasizing that they require substantially higher ion temperatures and still face major engineering and fuel-cycle challenges.
Fusion reactions such as p-11B are known physics. NASA has funded feasibility work involving aneutronic fusion propulsion and direct energy conversion. DOE discusses aneutronic reactions as legitimate research alternatives to deuterium-tritium fusion.
SUPPORTED
No commercial aneutronic fusion power plant has demonstrated sustained net electricity production. Claims of effectively unlimited power, hidden operational reactors, or specific UAP propulsion systems require evidence beyond patents, interviews, or online analysis.
UNPROVEN / REQUIRES EVIDENCE
Support transparent American fusion research with measurable milestones, independent replication, national-laboratory participation, domestic manufacturing, and public accounting of taxpayer-funded research. Fund science—not guaranteed conclusions.
PROPOSED POLICY
If future aneutronic systems become practical, potential advantages could include lower neutron activation, reduced shielding burdens, direct conversion of charged fusion products, compact power systems, and new options for grid generation or space propulsion. Those are potential benefits—not current commercial capabilities.
Motta 2028 question: Can America lead the research, manufacture the equipment domestically, publish test milestones, protect genuine national-security information, and still give taxpayers enough transparency to know what they funded?
Use this as a creator explainer, then compare its claims with NASA/DOE fusion sources below.
Creator discussion of plasma propulsion and aneutronic-fusion concepts.
Discussion includes Pais’s fusion patent, IEC fusion, and other fusion concepts. Patent claims are not the same thing as experimental validation.
Long-form discussion touching on advanced nuclear and fusion ideas. This module labels extraordinary technological claims separately from established evidence.
Useful for understanding how Forbes connects Pais’s work to his broader UAP/MH370 research. Those connections remain creator hypotheses unless independently established.
Ashton Forbes’s 4ORBS research connects alleged orb imagery, MH370 videos, field-reversed configurations, plasma physics, zero-point-energy ideas, and aneutronic fusion. This is an investigative hypothesis framework, not an established scientific explanation for the imagery.
Best voter experience: show the creator’s evidence and reasoning, then place NASA, DOE, patent records, and skeptical/independent technical evidence beside it. Let voters distinguish observation, interpretation, patent claim, experiment, and replicated result.
US10135366B2
Granted 2018; inventor Salvatore Pais; assigned to the U.S. Department of the Navy. Google Patents currently lists the patent as expired for fee-related reasons.
US10144532B2
Granted 2018; inventor Salvatore Pais; Navy-assigned. The filing describes a resonant-cavity craft and claimed inertial-mass-reduction effects.
US10322827B2
Granted 2019; inventor Salvatore Pais; Navy-assigned. Google Patents lists the patent as expired for fee-related reasons.
US20190058105A1
Published application; Google Patents lists it as abandoned. The application describes a piezoelectricity-induced room-temperature superconducting concept.
US20190295733A1
Published application; Google Patents lists it as abandoned. It proposes plasma compression using opposing dynamic fusors.
US20190348597A1
Published application; Google Patents lists it as abandoned. It describes a piezoelectricity-induced high-temperature-superconductor concept.
A U.S. patent can establish that an inventor claimed a particular invention and satisfied patent-office requirements for the issued claims. It does not by itself prove that a device was independently built, reproduced, or achieved every performance assertion in the patent. For controversial technologies, look for test reports, raw data, independent replication, peer-reviewed work, and subsequent engineering demonstrations.
NASA’s aneutronic-fusion spacecraft work discusses proton-boron-11, low-neutron concepts, direct energy conversion, and the difficulty of producing net useful power.
DOE explains that scientists study aneutronic reactions such as D-He3 and proton-boron because they may reduce neutron-related material challenges, but they require higher ion temperatures and still face substantial development barriers.
The 4ORBS archive catalogs hundreds of Ashton Forbes videos with transcripts, including fusion, field-reversed configurations, Pais interviews, UAP topics, and the MH370 investigation.
Beta is like a tug-of-war. The hot plasma pushes out. The magnetic field pushes in. Pais and Forbes talk about trying to keep those pushes balanced.
One meter is about 3.28 feet. If they mean a one-meter radius, a sphere would be about two meters across, or about 6.56 feet in diameter. If they mean one meter in diameter, it would be about 3.28 feet across. The transcript itself switches between “diameter” and “radius,” so the page does not pretend that ambiguity is settled.
Simple is good while complex is not is Pais’s engineering slogan: start with the simplest relationship that captures the main physics, then test it.
Plasma beta is the ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure: β = pplasma / [B²/(2μ₀)]. β≈1 means comparable plasma and magnetic pressures. The interview repeatedly connects fusion-power scaling to β² and reactor volume/size scaling with R³.
Important correction: the interview’s shorthand “β² is on the order of R³” should not be presented as a universal fusion law. A more defensible voter-facing statement is that fusion-power scaling in some confinement analyses contains β² and volume/size terms proportional to R³, while full reactor performance also depends on magnetic field, density, temperature, confinement, geometry, stability, efficiency, and fuel cycle.
STANDARD textbook or widely used relation in the stated context.
SCALING / APPROXIMATION useful simplified relationship, but incomplete by itself.
PAIS / FORBES HYPOTHESIS an interpretation or theoretical claim that requires independent evidence.
TRANSCRIPT AMBIGUITY the spoken wording is inconsistent or too garbled to reconstruct an exact equation.
If someone says a new machine can do something amazing, the fair test is not to laugh at it and not to believe it automatically. Build a careful test, measure what happens, let other scientists repeat it, and show the results.
Motta 2028: “Test the idea. Publish what can safely be published. If it works, prove it. If it fails, say so and learn why.”
The proposed program would use preregistered test criteria, calibrated instrumentation, control runs, independent replication, chain-of-custody for raw data, red-team review, and a public unclassified report. National-security-sensitive details could remain classified when legally necessary, while still publishing enough methodology and aggregate evidence to support scientific scrutiny.
Goal: determine whether any measurable, repeatable effect exists—not predetermine the answer.
“Simple is good while complex is not.”
“One day the Pais effect will be proved correct.”
“These are just the wild statements of an individual that knows a lot.”
Role: Senior Adviser for Advanced Propulsion, Fusion & Frontier Engineering, or member of a Presidential Advanced Physics Review Board.
Status: proposed nominee only, subject to ethics review, conflict-of-interest screening, security requirements, and the legal structure of any future office.
He has a Ph.D. in mechanical and aerospace engineering, worked in U.S. defense research environments, and is the named inventor on Navy-linked patents involving high-energy electromagnetic fields, inertial-mass reduction, gravitational-wave generation, superconductivity, and plasma-compression fusion.
Independent experimental replication, complete documentation, explicit separation of hypothesis from demonstrated effect, transparent accounting of taxpayer costs, and no claim of operational capability without evidence.
No verified personal X account for Salvatore Pais was found in the current research. This page therefore does not invent or mislabel an account.
A public NAVAIR FOIA document identifying Pais lists historical professional contact information, including salvatore.pais@navy.mil and a Yahoo address. Because the document is older and his employment may have changed, treat those addresses as historical and verify before relying on them.
Dr. Salvatore Pais: I’m Robert R. Motta, a 2028 presidential candidate. I want an independent, transparent program to test the Pais Effect—prove it or disprove it with reproducible evidence. I would also like to discuss a proposed advanced propulsion/fusion advisory role. @AshtonForbes, please pass this invitation along if appropriate. https://www.votemotta2028.com/grid-security/#pais-appointment
Public reporting and released Navy material indicate that Navy researchers spent several years investigating the high-energy electromagnetic-field concept associated with the “Pais Effect,” but the work did not establish the claimed effect. That makes an independent replication program a legitimate research proposal; it does not justify saying the effect is already real.
Lots of people in New Jersey saw lights and objects in the sky in late 2024 and called them drones. Some really were drones. Some were airplanes or helicopters. Some reports could not be clearly identified from the videos people sent in.
The important safety question is simple: if something flies over a military base, airport, power plant, ship, or other protected place, the government should be able to tell what it is quickly and explain what it can safely explain to the public.
DHS, FBI, FAA, and DoD said that after reviewing thousands of tips, the 2024 Northeast sightings appeared to be a mix of lawful commercial, hobbyist, and law-enforcement drones; manned aircraft and helicopters; and stars mistakenly reported as drones. The agencies said they had not identified anomalous activity presenting a national-security risk in civilian airspace.
DoD nevertheless confirmed sightings over two New Jersey military installations, and its December 2024 counter-unmanned-systems strategy describes unmanned systems as an urgent and enduring threat category. A sound policy therefore distinguishes the specific 2024 case from the broader need for better detection, identification, reporting, and lawful mitigation.
FBI/DHS initially said they had no evidence the reported New Jersey sightings posed a national-security or public-safety threat or had a foreign nexus. A later joint DHS/FBI/FAA/DoD statement said agencies had reviewed more than 5,000 tips, generated about 100 leads, and had not identified anything anomalous presenting a security risk in civilian airspace.
OFFICIAL RECORD
DoD confirmed sightings at Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle. Officials emphasized that drone incursions near military facilities are not a new problem and that commanders coordinate detection and mitigation with law enforcement.
CONFIRMED
The Pentagon did not say the New Jersey objects were extraterrestrial. It also rejected the claim that an Iranian “mothership” off the U.S. coast was launching the reported drones.
FALSE / UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS
Rep. Jeff Van Drew publicly suggested that Iran could be launching drones from a “mothership” off the East Coast. Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh rejected that claim on December 11, 2024, saying there was no Iranian ship off the United States launching drones and no evidence the reported activity came from a foreign entity or adversary.
Motta 2028 standard: treat foreign-actor allegations as intelligence claims requiring evidence, not as campaign facts simply because a public official said them.
CBS compilation includes resident reports, video, Pentagon comments, and lawmakers.
Early national reporting on large-object reports in New Jersey and New York.
Coverage of FBI requests for public information and local officials demanding answers.
Reporting from Mine Hill, New Jersey, with residents and experts discussing misidentification.
Discussion after the FAA imposed temporary drone restrictions over parts of New Jersey.
State and federal officials discuss unresolved questions during the height of the reports.
Ross Coulthart covers New Jersey reports alongside drone/UAP incidents near military sites.
Coverage after the Pentagon said it had no evidence the activity was coming from overseas.
December 13 roundup of the New Jersey sightings and official response.
Creator-posted footage described as glowing objects seen on a Chicago-to-Newark flight. Treat the uploader’s UAP interpretation as a claim, not verified identification.
Not every viral “New Jersey drone” image or clip actually showed a drone. Fact-checkers identified old photographs, digitally created material, altered footage with fake gunfire, and military-helicopter training misrepresented as armed drones. The campaign page therefore grades every submitted video: verified location/date, likely aircraft, confirmed drone, unknown, or misleading/altered.
Steven M. Greer, M.D., is a retired emergency physician and UAP/UFO advocate. He founded the Disclosure Project and the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI). His organization says he began efforts in the 1990s to collect military, government, intelligence, and corporate witness testimony and organized the 2001 National Press Club Disclosure event.
His claims about extraterrestrial intelligence, secret programs, advanced energy systems, and staged threat scenarios are controversial and are not treated on this site as established facts without independent evidence.
Proposed role: UAP Transparency Advisory Council / public disclosure and witness-documentation adviser.
Why consider him: decades of disclosure advocacy, a large witness/document archive, and experience organizing public UAP testimony.
Review requirements: financial/conflict disclosures, evidence standards, security-clearance requirements if applicable, willingness to distinguish verified records from hypotheses, and Senate confirmation only if a future statutory office requires it.
Greer presents his interpretation of the New Jersey sightings. His “false flag” allegation is a claim and is not established by the federal findings cited above.
Third-party clip discussing Greer’s assertions. Included for voter research, not as verification.
Timothy Gallaudet is a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral and career oceanographer. His congressional biography lists service as Oceanographer of the Navy, Commander of Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Acting NOAA Administrator, and Deputy NOAA Administrator.
He later became CEO of Ocean STL Consulting and a research affiliate with Harvard’s Galileo Project. He testified under oath at the November 13, 2024 House UAP hearing.
Gallaudet’s 2024 Sol Foundation paper Beneath the Surface argues that UAP research should expand from the atmosphere into the ocean and the air-sea interface, including reports described as unidentified submerged objects (USOs) and “transmedium” phenomena.
His claims about particular UAP/USO cases should be evaluated case by case; his background in Navy oceanography and NOAA makes ocean-domain sensing and maritime security a relevant policy discussion regardless of ultimate UAP origin.
Gallaudet discusses his Navy background, the “Go Fast” UAP email episode, scientific research, and disclosure.
NewsNation interview before Gallaudet’s November 2024 congressional testimony; includes ocean, submarine, and UAP discussion.
House hearing featuring Gallaudet, Luis Elizondo, Michael Gold, and Michael Shellenberger. The official House page includes written testimony and witness biographies.
Official House HearingPolicy principle: any object that cannot be promptly identified near protected airspace, military installations, strategic infrastructure, naval formations, ports, or sensitive waters deserves rapid identification and lawful investigation. That does not mean every unidentified report is hostile, foreign, or extraterrestrial.
Dangerous operational passages are replaced with safety redactions.
Informal campaign research — not scientific polling.
Research categories: Secretary of Energy, FERC commissioners, DOE Office of Electricity leadership, Grid Security & Resilience Adviser, Domestic Transformer Manufacturing Adviser, National Microgrid Initiative Director, Grid Cybersecurity Adviser and Skilled Trades & Grid Workforce Council.
Dr. Pais says moving electric charges in a very fast and special way might create huge electromagnetic effects. He thinks those effects could change how matter, gravity, or even spacetime behaves. Other scientists say the big claims have not been proven. The fair test is to build the experiment correctly and measure what happens.
The publicly described “Pais Effect” proposes high local electromagnetic energy densities generated by accelerated vibration/spin of charged matter. Pais links this to macroscopic quantum coherence and vacuum-energy interaction. These extensions are controversial and lack broadly accepted independent experimental validation.
In his 2020 correspondence, Pais defined the effect using controlled charged-matter motion, accelerated vibration/spin, and rapid acceleration transients. In a 2026 interview, he used the phrase “weapons of time”, said such weapons “cannot be counteracted,” and summarized his premise as “she who controls time controls everything.”
Those quotations document his stated view. They do not establish that such a weapon has been built or works.
I did not find reliable evidence that a U.S. president personally reviewed Pais's work and formally declined it. What is documented is that Navy/NAWCAD work received internal attention, patent support and some experimental effort; a USPTO interview record also shows an examiner requested experimental data for one application. More recent reporting says a prototype discussed with Rep. Eric Burlison did not produce definitive results and Pais said it was not built to his specifications. Motta 2028 should describe this as research that did not receive conclusive public validation, not claim prior presidents personally rejected it unless a primary record surfaces.
Inertial Mass Reduction Craft High-Frequency Gravitational-Wave Generator Plasma Compression Fusion Device