In the article toward the end it states this.
The move will also make the Navy's case for the new Ford-class carrier harder to make, Sharp said, noting that the Navy could bolster its amphibious fleet as a way to fill that gap.
I agree with the Ford issue. I think the other part depends. Besides the point that an Amphib makes a poor substitute for a carrier against first team threats, in a future with higher prices for fossil fuels, this could be a problem. For force projection in high fossil fuel price times, if you have an all nuclear aircraft carrier group (1 carrier, 2 nuke destroyers, and 2 nuke attack subs), the fossil fuels you bring out to the fleet for replenishment will be less.
The Navy needs to develop a nuclear powered (no outrageous frills) destroyer to escort carriers. This makes good sense and is safe in the long run.