On January 20th, Donald Trump returned to the White House as president, marking a new chapter for U.S. energy policy. With growing concerns over energy security, the future of decarbonization, and global competitiveness, nuclear energy sits at an important crossroads.

While Trump has historically championed deregulation and energy independence, his positions on nuclear power have been inconsistent—at times supportive, yet often vague or contradictory. But there are some clear advocates for nuclear power in his inner circle. His pick to lead the Department of Energy, Chris Wright, is notably pro-nuclear. Wright, a longtime oil and gas executive, served on the board of directors of Oklo, a microreactor company, prior to his confirmation. Vice-President J.D. Vance publicly supports nuclear energy—framing it as a reliable and innovative energy solution. And Elon Musk, a long-time supporter of nuclear power but a relative newcomer to Trump’s entourage, has publicly advocated for nuclear power in an interview with Trump himself.

Overall, there are solid signs for a pro-nuclear Trump administration. Trump’s campaign website includes a commitment to modernizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), keeping existing nuclear plants operational and investing in small modular reactors (SMRs). Subsequently, a commitment to shifting energy policy from Biden’s climate-centric priorities to a focus on energy security and competitiveness—as already seen in the pullout from the Paris climate agreement, the pause of IRA and IIJA funds, and the declaration of a “national energy emergency”—will likely privilege nuclear energy in the Trump administration. These signs are now solidified by one of Trump’s most recent executive orders to establish The National Energy Dominance Council, in which Trump has set his sights specifically on SMRs.

But while Trump’s rhetoric about "rapid approvals" and nuclear modernization sounds promising, it is unclear how they will translate into action. The biggest challenge at this moment remains uncertainty. Signals from key political figures and campaign promises offer optimism for new nuclear development, but the lack of detailed policy commitments and clarity on execution leaves stakeholders grappling with questions. Will his administration support or even expand programs like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and those building a domestic nuclear fuel supply chain? How will regulation change at the NRC? Will incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) remain intact or be carved up under a Republican majority? Will policy and workforce changes undermine the implementation and execution of the “energy dominance” agenda? Can the nuclear industry actually make significant headway under this administration?

The industry is optimistic but has already put the brakes on several projects due to uncertainty. A rapidly changing landscape doesn’t encourage investment in an 80-year asset. Until at least some of these questions are answered and policy stabilizes, announcements and PR may accelerate, but real progress will slow.

Continued approval and execution of programs in DOE is critical. Alternatively, efforts to cut agency employment—a priority of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency—will slow down the federal support that the industry desperately needs. Federal funding and incentives aimed at new projects could aid deployment exponentially. However, budget priorities are non-specific and the administration is not likely to advocate for federal handouts. These contingencies—coupled with remaining indecision, implicit policies, and implied long-term goals for nuclear energy—could delay critical progress if not addressed swiftly.

In short, the tone from key figures in the administration is promising for nuclear energy, but the lack of specificity and Trump’s track record of unpredictability leave much up in the air. Unpredictability is not what the nuclear sector needs to get moving and may negatively impact private investment in nuclear more than good policy can encourage it. The next few months will be critical in determining whether this moment becomes a turning point or a missed opportunity for nuclear energy in the United States.

Can Improving Efficiency Make Nuclear Great Again?

The Trump administration’s most significant influence will likely come through attempts to improve governmental “efficiency” overall. This could resemble indiscriminate clear-cutting of federal staffing—which would be a bad thing—or a more legitimate reform that modernizes outdated processes and expedites regulatory approvals. If the latter efforts succeed, they could unlock faster deployment of advanced nuclear energy, reduce costs, and position the U.S. as a global leader in nuclear innovation.

When it comes to continued public investment, federal support for nuclear energy programs like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) development is more likely to survive than the broader clean energy programs. These programs, launched under Trump’s first term, align with Republican priorities around energy security and American industrial strength.

However, it’s unlikely that support under a second Trump administration will match the levels provided by Biden’s Department of Energy. Funding could be reduced, and the scope of federal programs may shift to emphasize more traditional financing mechanisms, like loans or public-private partnerships, rather than outright grants and purchase of fuel using a federally operated HALEU bank.

But make no mistake, the industry cannot afford to lose these programs entirely. The ARDP is critical to getting first-of-a-kind reactors deployed, and HALEU supply remains an urgent issue for the industry. Ensuring continuity in these programs—even at reduced levels—will be a key priority for the nuclear sector in 2025 and beyond.

Still, ARDP and HALEU are more likely to survive than the Inflation Reduction Act’s nuclear incentives—which could still be modified rather than eliminated outright.

Republicans have long criticized the IRA as a bloated spending package, but there’s growing recognition that the nuclear provisions directly contribute to energy security and economic resilience. That said, any disruption to the IRA’s tax credits will have ripple effects across the industry, creating financial uncertainty for advanced reactor developers, slowing deployment timelines, and potentially killing projects outright. The nuclear sector must make a strong case that these incentives aren’t just about clean energy—they’re about securing the nation’s energy future.

But where the Biden administration focused on funding energy technologies, Trump could make progress on improving the regulatory process for new nuclear energy.

If Trump delivers on his promise to modernize the NRC, the time and cost required to get new projects approved could be significantly reduced. Secretary Wright said that the biggest hold-up to building more nuclear energy, by far, has been regulatory. A streamlined, modernized regulatory process would reduce approval timelines, cut costs, and attract more private sector investment. Notably, achieving regulatory efficiency at the NRC does not mean compromising safety—it means focusing resources on measures that demonstrably enhance public safety. Regulatory delays have long been a bottleneck for the nuclear industry; fixing this would be a game-changer.

As an independent agency, it is the NRC Commission that has authority to make changes, not the President directly. The composition of the NRC will, therefore, play a crucial role in shaping the future of nuclear energy. Matthew Marzano was sworn in as a new Democratic commissioner at the end of December, giving Democrats a 3-2 majority on the commission. That, however, may not last long.

President Trump has been busy already. He named David Wright as the new Republican chair to replace outgoing Chair Christopher Hanson. A Republican chair will almost certainly push for changes aimed at making the NRC more efficient and predictable in its licensing process—a long-standing industry demand. Republican commissioners Wright and Annie Caputo both supported the implementation of provisions of the ADVANCE Act. Caputo, in particular, has a strong track record of advocating for risk-informed, performance-based regulation. Wright has signaled firm support for reforms that reduce unnecessary regulatory delays.

The future of the NRC remains in flux, with an updated mission, ongoing efforts to modernize, and many rulemakings behind schedule. Republicans may push for Commissioner Hanson’s departure, allowing Trump to appoint a third Republican and shift the Commission to a 3-2 conservative majority, accelerating regulatory reform. Beyond personnel changes, Trump is pursuing structural reforms—moving independent agencies under his direct control—to drive a more centralized agenda. Currently, the NRC Chair has limited unilateral authority. The priorities of the Chair can be delayed or voted down by a Commission majority. While a move to restructure the agency would require congressional approval, it aligns with Trump’s deregulatory approach. It would also make the agency much more politically volatile, providing Trump more direct influence over regulatory decisions.

Regardless of the outcome, a Republican-led NRC is likely to prioritize efficiency and reducing regulatory barriers, while maintaining the mandate to protect people and the environment. If there is any chance of getting steel in the ground for new nuclear builds during this Trump term, other than ARDP projects that have been in the works for years, then regulators simply cannot take more than three years to issue an operating license.

But will efficiency move the nuclear industry forward? For nuclear energy to truly thrive in the next four years, the United States needs to establish a robust pipeline of projects—what the industry often refers to as an "order book."

An order book isn’t just about new plants on paper—it represents real commitments to build facilities that justifies investment in manufacturing, creates a clear demand signal for the supply chain, and attracts external investment. It is the necessary step to provide the certainty required to move from concept to construction. From paper reactors to steel reactors.

Without an order book, the broader goals of deploying advanced reactors, revitalizing the domestic supply chain, and solidifying nuclear energy’s role in U.S. energy security will remain unrealized.

Let’s Get to Work

Republicans generally favor nuclear energy. Its alignment with their broader goals—energy independence, economic growth, and national security—makes it a natural fit for Trump’s administration.

While the role of nuclear power in decarbonization is significant, its broader strategic value should not be overlooked. Nuclear energy is essential to achieving energy security, safeguarding against geopolitical threats, and enhancing American technological leadership and competitiveness on the global stage. It is fundamental to U.S. energy security and must be treated as a national priority.

Nuclear energy creates jobs, stabilizes energy costs, increases electricity reliability, and reduces reliance on critical minerals. To secure its future, policymakers must prioritize investments that support its long-term growth, ensuring nuclear energy remains a pillar of American economic and strategic strength.

There is an opportunity to advance policies that strengthen nuclear supply chains, accelerate reactor deployment, and expand domestic HALEU enrichment—critical steps for reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and reinforcing national security.

While these arguments are not new, a Republican-led administration may create an environment more conducive to bold action. Despite broad bipartisan support, advancing meaningful nuclear policy in this Congress may require moving beyond a climate-first narrative, which has been polarizing for some.

States—notably, many Republican-led states—are already embracing nuclear energy as a key component of their energy strategies. From Wyoming to Tennessee, red states are leading the way in hosting advanced reactor projects, fostering a culture of nuclear innovation that aligns with their priorities. This state-level enthusiasm is a significant opportunity for the federal government to build upon.

However, this momentum risks being squandered if action is not taken at both the state and federal levels. States must continue to advance supportive policies, such as streamlined permitting processes and incentives for advanced nuclear projects, while the federal government plays a critical role in providing resources and aligning its priorities with those of state governments. Federal support in areas like HALEU enrichment, regulatory modernization, and project funding can amplify state efforts, ensuring that innovative projects move from concept to reality.

The alignment of state and federal goals offers an opportunity to create a unified framework for expanding nuclear energy. Without this coordination, the enthusiasm seen in states may falter, leaving promising projects stranded in red tape or stalled by funding gaps. The path forward requires a partnership that leverages state-level leadership and federal resources to solidify the role of nuclear energy in America’s energy future.

To achieve this alignment, industry leaders, utilities, advocacy groups, and policymakers must use their collective voices to ensure that the NRC develops and implements efficient regulation. With the passage of the ADVANCE Act, there is an opportunity to modernize the regulatory framework for advanced nuclear energy. Success, however, will depend heavily on how stakeholders, industry leaders, and policymakers engage with the NRC.

Regulatory reforms are most effective when informed by those directly involved in the effort to deploy advanced technologies. This includes providing detailed feedback during rulemaking processes, highlighting where current regulations unnecessarily limit public benefits, and demonstrating how alternative approaches can maintain public safety while enabling efficiency. Collaborative efforts among these groups can identify best practices and offer data-driven examples to guide the NRC toward policies that reflect the realities of modern nuclear technologies.

Clear, unified messaging is critical. Stakeholders, alongside policymakers' efforts, can underscore the importance of regulatory consistency and alignment between state and federal priorities, creating momentum for an environment that supports innovation and deployment. Stakeholders must articulate how reforms will maintain rigorous safety standards while addressing urgent challenges like high costs and lengthy timelines. By framing regulatory modernization as a win for energy security, economic development, and global competitiveness, stakeholders, industry, and policymakers can help build a consensus that strengthens public and political support for nuclear energy.

Parting Thoughts

The future of nuclear energy under the Trump administration faces a pivotal moment. Will Trump seize the opportunity to grow the U.S. nuclear industry, or will his administration prove too unpredictable? The outcome over the next four years will have long-lasting implications for energy security, economic strength, and America's role as a leader in nuclear innovation.

For stakeholders in the nuclear energy sector, this is a moment of both promise and peril. Success will depend on turning rhetoric into reality—moving beyond campaign slogans and high-level plans to deliver tangible results. An order book is the starting point, but collaboration among policymakers, industry leaders, and the public will be equally essential.

Ultimately, the nuclear industry must be ready to adapt. Whether it’s navigating regulatory changes, securing funding, or building public trust, this period demands strategic vision and unified action. Now is the time to focus on what can be controlled: creating the conditions for success by advocating for clarity, consistency, and commitment in U.S. nuclear policy.