The Trump administration’s overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could be working against its own agenda to accelerate the deployment of new nuclear energy.
President Donald Trump is looking to increase the United States’ reliance on nuclear energy within their broader effort to meet soaring electricity demands in part due to artificial intelligence technologies expanding domestically.
Recommended Stories
- EPA delays methane rule for oil and gas as rollback looms
- Trump administration halts ‘special treatment’ for wind energy government projects
- Chinese lanternflies are in DC — what to know
The president and his energy-focused Cabinet members have indicated that nuclear power will be crucial for the U.S. to get ahead in the AI race and secure their goal of “energy dominance.”
Building a nuclear energy facility in the U.S. takes years. The most recent nuclear reactors built domestically were the Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 in Georgia. These came online in 2023 and 2024, roughly ten years after construction began.
With the administration bracing for peak hour energy demand to rise by at least 100 gigawatts by 2030, nuclear advocates say that timeline can no longer work if the U.S. wants to add a substantial amount of nuclear power to its energy mix.
In an effort to speed up the development of new nuclear energy, Trump has taken aim at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Trump’s proposed overhaul
In a slew of executive orders signed in May targeting the nuclear energy industry, Trump called for the NRC to be reformed. The order targeted the independent agency’s licensing timeline and internal culture.
It specifically called on the group to make decisions on reactor licenses within 18 months and prioritize reactor safety while also promoting the adoption of nuclear technology.
At the time, senior White House officials said there would be a substantial reorganization at the agency, including turnover and changes in roles.
It did not directly call for the firing or removal of any sitting NRC commission members, however, the first departure was seen just weeks later.
The first departure
In mid-June, the president fired Democratic member Christopher Hanson, marking the first time a commissioner had been fired from the independent commission since it was created in 1975.
Hanson said at the time that his firing was “without cause.”
He had been appointed to the NRC during Trump’s first term and was reappointed in 2024. His term was set to expire in 2029. His firing was widely criticized by the industry, with a group of former NRC officials writing a letter in protest.
“This action endangers the independence of the NRC as it raises the specter of political considerations carrying greater weight than public health and safety,” the letter read.
Congressional pushback
Around the same time Trump fired Hanson, he renominated NRC Chair David Wright to a new term stretching into June 2030. His current term was set to expire at the end of June.
Wright’s nomination swiftly moved through committee, with the Senate confirming his nomination on Monday.
The nomination was met with pushback from Democrats in the Senate, who did not question his qualifications but the circumstances that led to his new term.
Senate Environmental and Public Works committee ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), accused the administration of overreaching its authority on the NRC, saying the agency’s independence was under threat.
“The future of nuclear energy in this country requires a credible, independent regulator. Efficiency, yes, it’s important, but safety is paramount,” Whitehouse said earlier this month.
“Just one lapse would put our country at risk, unravel our years of bipartisan progress, and set nuclear power backward,” he continued. “Under the Trump Administration, that unraveling is happening.”
The second departure
One day after Wright’s nomination was confirmed, the commission was hit with another shakeup.
Republican commission member Annie Caputo announced her plans to retire from the agency. The NRC confirmed to Mother Jones that Caputo will leave her seat as soon as Wright is sworn in.
Caputo did not indicate whether her resignation was in response to the administration’s efforts to shake up the NRC, as she said it was time “to more fully focus on my family.”
Though, given the timing of the announcement, many nuclear proponents have claimed it is indicative of a deteriorating and ambiguous situation at a crucial agency for additional deployment.
“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides a powerful legal barrier against antinuclear forces in the USA who seek to delay and destroy nuclear energy through legal uncertainty,” Mark Nelson, managing director of Radiant Energy, wrote in a post to X.
“But now the NRC is under full-scale attack from a bunch of folks who don’t seem to understand the crucial role the NRC plays in protecting nuclear energy from endless, arbitrary legal attack and investment-killing uncertainty,” Nelson added.
Undermining own goals
The White House has said it is aiming to deploy 300 gigawatts of new net nuclear capacity by 2050 and have 10 large reactors under construction in the U.S. by 2030.
What is already an ambitious timeline could become further complicated with the rapid overhaul of the NRC.
“I would say that if you’re going to radically shake up this commission and then demand quick timelines that you’re setting yourself up to fail,” Emmet Penney, a senior fellow with the Foundation for American Innovation, told the Washington Examiner.
It remains unclear if the White House will fire additional sitting members of the NRC, or if they will walk away themselves, threatening both future investment and deployment, Penney said.
Nelson agreed, previously telling the Washington Examiner that “if the NRC is stripped away, I don’t think it will make nuclear go any faster, but I do think it’s entirely possible that nuclear could go slower.”
The administration does have a number of tools in its arsenal to speed up the regulatory process and development for nuclear power, including using the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office to fund new projects.
It has yet to be seen how two open seats on the five-member commission will affect the speed of regulatory approvals, though policy groups like the Breakthrough Institute have warned a full commission is “statistically almost twice as efficient” as a three-member one.
Reform broadly supported
While there are concerns about how the Trump administration is overhauling the NRC, most agree that some form of reform is needed.
“Does the NRC need to be reformed? Yes! Can it move faster? Yes! And this reform was happening and so is the speed-up,” Nelson wrote on X. “I’ve not met any serious, seasoned pro-nuclear expert who doesn’t agree. But not a single one thinks the Commission itself should be politized or eliminated.”
Penney explained that there are a number of smaller regulatory actions the NRC can do away with, such as requiring any bike racks on the site of a nuclear power plant to be “nuclear grade.”’
No matter the reform, however, he said they should be pursued through Congress, passing them through statute rather than executive action that could be swiftly reversed under a new administration.
Penney warned as ambiguity and tensions grow, he is worried that nuclear energy could become as polarized as issues like climate change.
“My worry is that the nuclear issue is going to become like the climate issue, where, unless you have the most radical position, you are painted as anti-nuclear or denialist,” he said.
“We’ve already seen how that politics plays out. It’s a non-starter. It’s super toxic. It makes everyone look bad, especially the radicals.”