Despite Bipartisan Backing, Nuclear’s Future Is Uncertain Under Trump
One reason why previous administrations turned away from nuclear energy investment in the 1980s is the high costs and time needed to construct larger-scale reactors. These development projects can be risky for corporations to take on due to high upfront costs, construction delays, and regulatory obstacles. In addition, opposition from local communities has increased regulations and delays for new projects. High-profile nuclear accidents domestically and internationally—most notably the 1979 Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania—further undermined public confidence and reinforced perceptions of a declining industry.
Why Has Nuclear Power Reemerged as a Policy Priority?
There are several reasons:
Bolstering national security. Proponents of nuclear energy say nuclear energy contributes significantly to U.S. national security in several ways, including powering navy fleets and investing in nonproliferation leadership. In addition, the war in Ukraine has underscored the need for a nuclear energy shift and a broader move towards lower carbon energy sources. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European Union (EU) experienced an energy crisis due to its overreliance on Russian pipeline gas, calling into question the bloc’s energy security and disrupting U.S. relations with Europe. The crisis highlighted the flaws of overreliance on a single energy source and encouraged countries to diversify, creating an opportunity for nuclear energy to emerge as an eventual alternative to Russian gas. Examples of this shift can be seen in the United Kingdom, where the country aims to quadruple installed nuclear capacity by 2050, and in Belgium, where the EU is aiding in extending the lifespan of Belgian reactors and delaying planned phaseouts.
Improving strategic competitiveness. Over the past several decades, the United States has lost its leadership in nuclear energy innovation, with other countries outcompeting it in exporting their nuclear technologies around the world. According to the IEA, Chinese- and Russian-designed reactors make up all fifty-two reactors where construction has begun since 2017. As it stands, China is on track to overtake the United States in nuclear power capacity by 2030. Policy experts argue that next-generation reactors—such as small modular reactors—are opportunities for the United States to reclaim leadership, create high-value jobs, and shape global energy infrastructure.
Meeting climate goals. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source that plays a crucial role in decarbonizing the U.S. energy sector by reducing U.S. carbon emissions. In addition, nuclear power can provide consistent, low-carbon energy through baseload electricity, meaning that unlike wind and solar, nuclear power plants operate continuously and will consistently meet the minimum level of power demand. While a focus on nuclear energy has rebounded in recent years due to climate concerns, there appears little consideration of a climate angle in the Trump administration’s agenda.
Supplying AI energy demands. Along with these factors, artificial intelligence (AI) has placed a more recent spotlight on nuclear energy. As tech giants race to gain an advantage in the development of AI for their companies and consumers, hyperscalers—companies that operate massive computing and data storage systems—are desperate for ways to power AI’s growing energy needs. For example, in September 2024, Microsoft signed a power purchase agreement with supplier Constellation Energy to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. CFR Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate David M. Hart speculates that tech giants could be a mobilizing force in furthering the development of nuclear energy technology to simultaneously meet their power demands and maintain their future climate goals. “Nuclear power could help the tech industry overcome two of its major energy challenges: its extraordinary future power demands, and its need to achieve its ambitious climate goals,” says Hart.
Does Nuclear Energy Have Bipartisan Support?
As other climate technologies face significant political uncertainty under a second Trump administration, nuclear energy could reemerge as a policy priority with relatively strong bipartisan support.
In fact, the Biden administration had continued and expanded several of the first Trump administration’s nuclear energy policies, including backing projects with DOE loan guarantees. Moreover, the 2022 IRA passed under Biden sought to promote investment in nuclear technology and advance already established plants through tax credits and other incentives.
Under Biden, Congress also furthered the nuclear agenda and passed the bipartisan Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024. This bill sought to promote advanced nuclear energy through regulatory incentives, enhancing licensing processes, and providing prizes for deployments.
How Has the Trump Administration Acted on Nuclear Energy?
Despite vocal criticism of clean energy during the campaign, Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright have repeatedly emphasized the importance of nuclear power as a solution for providing cheaper and more reliable electricity—calling for an “American nuclear renaissance” to meet the demands of AI data centers and advance U.S. technological leadership. The Trump administration has so far issued four executive orders on nuclear energy, laying out a vision to quadruple the current U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts. The orders focus on:
1. streamlining and deregulating processes in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an agency that provides independent oversight of civilian nuclear plants, to accelerate reactor approvals;
2. limiting the NRC’s oversight in advanced reactor deployment;
3. directing the military to adopt new nuclear technologies and help boost U.S. exports; and
4. strengthening the nuclear fuel supply chain and reducing reliance on foreign sources.
In addition, the administration has been supportive of the Department of Defense’s procurement of small modular reactors, which would help expedite the deployment of nuclear power. The administration also wants to expedite nuclear licensing by developing a workaround for NRC licensing that would run through the defense and energy departments.
Together, the orders mark an ambitious push to reassert American leadership in nuclear energy, with a clear emphasis on deployment and deregulation. However, without sustained bipartisan support, consistent policymaking and a strong investment environment, meeting these goals could be far off. The administration’s ambition stands in tension with other decisions emerging from the White House and Congress.
Many of the recent executive orders seek to reduce oversight of the NRC, placing significant pressure on the agency to make reforms while still upholding safety and authority standards.. Increased pressure and deregulation could lower safety measures and public trust in the energy industry. In June, Trump fired a democratic NRC commissioner, further putting into question the NRC’s authority as an independent regulatory agency and dismantling bipartisan continuity.
While the orders project strong federal support, other recent moves by the administration and Congress suggest a more complicated picture. In the reconciliation bill, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, nuclear maintains its tax credit timeline that was established in the IRA—whereas other renewable tax credits are being cut. The bill also includes an allocation of money for the “acceleration of development of small, portable modular nuclear reactors for military use.” However, the bill removes lending power from the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO), which finances energy and energy infrastructure projects. The bill revokes $3.6 billion of unobligated credit subsidies from the LPO’s Title 17 loan guarantee program, which oversees financing projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By removing these subsidies, the government is limiting the amount of lending capabilities that the LPO will be able to undertake. However, the office should still be able to support some level of nuclear projects moving forward.
At the same time, the Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget request proposes a 24 percent cut to the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, though it also proposes a large increase in loan authority—primarily to support construction of existing reactor designs.
In addition to these funding challenges, cuts to DOE staff present a significant challenge to the department’s work on nuclear energy projects. In early April, a group of pro-nuclear organizations wrote to Wright asking him to ensure that the LPO office remains able to continue its work.
Mia Beams is a research associate for climate and energy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This article is published courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
