2026-11-05 · contested story

Trump's push to quadruple nuclear power reopens fight over spent fuel disposal

The core story is the Trump administration's push to revive and expand U.S. nuclear power — quadrupling capacity by 2050 via executive orders — and how that ambition has reawakened the long-dormant fight over what to do with 90,000-plus metric tons of radioactive spent fuel. The administration's signature vehicles are a 'Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses' initiative (soliciting states to host fuel reprocessing, storage, and disposition) and a Reactor Pilot Program that routes approval of new experimental reactors through the Department of Energy rather than the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The waste problem — Yucca Mountain's political death, the Supreme Court's NRC v. Texas interim-storage ruling, and the revival of plutonium/pyroprocessing recycling — sits at the center of the debate.

How each side frames it

left
"They have been rebranded with new names and slight tweaks, but they still have the same problems. The only thing new is misleading narratives that they have solved the safety, security, and waste management issues that make these technologies unworkable."
"They're taking a wrecking ball to the system of nuclear safety and security regulation oversight that has kept the U.S. from having another Three Mile Island accident"
"The White House is trying to create a 'regulatory tunnel' around NRC's safety regulations. That would mean DOE's biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers"
"They're pulling away from what's kept us safe all these years"
"That's the answer for weapons-grade nuclear waste, but what about the stuff from power plants? That's even easier: just reclassify it as agricultural waste and compost it."
center
"The waste isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future and a lot of communities aren't willing to take that risk"
"That growing chorus of nuclear enthusiasm quiets quickly, however, when the topic turns to nuclear waste."
"All three of the plants closed before their licenses expired, largely because the electricity they produced was considered too expensive. Not anymore."
"The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates nuclear generation for plants coming online in 2031 would cost 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, including tax credits, compared with 5.7 cents for onshore wind and 5.8 cents for solar photovoltaics"
"The Department of Energy (DOE) has closed loans on two reactor restarts with corporate buyers already signed, while its largest nuclear commitment, $17.5 billion for new large reactors, remains conditional and has no named borrowers."
right
"Through a series of executive orders signed this week, President Trump is taking action to usher in an American nuclear renaissance."
"the Energy Department has provided no service for these funds, collecting virtually no spent fuel, pouring over $10 billion down a hole in Yucca Mountain... Now taxpayers are liable for $44.5 billion"
"It is not a safety issue. Nuclear waste, or more accurately, spent nuclear fuel is safely stored on site... All U.S. spent fuel ever produced would fit on a single football field stacked 10 yards high"
"The NRC set the gold standard for safety regulation when it was established in 1975, but it soon transformed into a lead curtain for innovation."
"The NRC demands meltdown plans from reactors that can't melt down. It scrutinizes passive systems more heavily because they don't include the active components the rules expect. This is ritualism, not sensible regulation."

What each side left out

The right left out — covered by the The Boston Globe & The Washington Post & Brookings Institution
The right left out — covered by the NPR & Mother Jones
The left left out — covered by the Fox News & Just The News
The left left out — covered by the City Journal & Fox News
The center left out — covered by the Mother Jones & Common Dreams
The right left out — covered by the NPR & Common Dreams

What's actually true?

[verified] The U.S. has accumulated more than 90,000 (roughly 95,000) metric tons of spent nuclear fuel with no permanent repository.
[verified] Trump signed an executive order (May 2025) calling for quadrupling U.S. nuclear power capacity (from ~100 GW to 400 GW) by 2050.
[verified] Congress designated Yucca Mountain (via 1987 amendments and a 2002 Bush approval) as the sole legal site for a permanent high-level waste repository; funding was cut off/defunded under Obama around 2010.
[verified] The DOE's Reactor Pilot Program routes approval of new experimental commercial reactors through the Department of Energy rather than the independent NRC, with a goal of criticality in at least three reactors by July 4, 2026.
[verified] In NRC v. Texas (June 2025), the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision dismissed state efforts to block an NRC-approved interim above-ground storage facility in Andrews County, Texas, on standing grounds.
[verified] DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses inquiry drew responses from many states; only a small number (e.g., Tennessee and Utah among public replies) expressed interest in hosting permanent storage.
[verified] The 'pyroprocessing' recycling technique promoted by Oklo and Curio was first developed at Argonne National Laboratory in the 1960s but was kept from commercial deployment over cost and weapons-proliferation risks.
[verified] The DOE announced a conditional loan commitment of up to $5 billion to Constellation Energy to upgrade/modernize reactors in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, adding roughly 1.1 GW.

The narrative clash

Whether nuclear waste storage is a safety problem or merely a policy/financial problem
Left: After more than 60 years of commercial nuclear power, we still don't know what to do with the radioactive waste it generates, much of which will remain deadly for tens of thousands of years. Most of it remains onsite in pools and casks with no place to go.
Right: It is not a safety issue. Nuclear waste, or more accurately, spent nuclear fuel is safely stored on site at nuclear power plants in secure pools and in dry casks and takes little space.
Whether recycling/reprocessing spent fuel is viable and safe
Left: These are the same technologies that were developed and rejected decades ago... they still have the same problems. The only thing new is misleading narratives that they have solved the safety, security, and waste management issues that make these technologies unworkable.
Right: If we transition to commercial recycling on these innovation campuses, we recover that valuable fuel, slash the waste's radioactive lifespan from 100,000 years down to just 300 years, and stop that structural financial bleeding.
Whether the NRC's rigor should be reformed or defended
Left: This was a very strong conflict of interest... The promoters of these small modular reactors were becoming very vociferous about the NRC being the problem.
Right: the NRC has fallen prey to the pathologies the commission warned against... an agency 'beset by an overconcentration on regulations, an attitude that tends to equate the meeting of regulations with safety.'
Whether federal loans to restart reactors are a good use of taxpayer money
Left: the taxpayer money being used should go toward addressing safety risks... 'It's possible, if they set the right level of safety and spend the necessary funds to meet that, they could restore these plants to operable condition... That's not happening at this point.'
Right: he can't think of a worse use of taxpayer money than using it to restart reactors. These are low-risk projects where there is a massive demand for the energy, so there is no reason to funnel federal dollars to these companies
Legality and legitimacy of bypassing the NRC
Left: Routing reactor approvals through DOE builds an unlawful 'regulatory tunnel' around the NRC's safety rules and substitutes the promoter's assumptions for an independent regulator's.
Right: The NRC's reviews are empty ceremony applied to designs they were never written for, so the answer is not reform at the margins but abolishing the agency.

100 sources analyzed

Mother Jones Politico E&E News The Dispatch Fox News The Boston Globe NBC News Associated Press Boston Herald City Journal The Boston Globe Scientific American Bloomberg New York Post Fox News Vox The Washington Post Brookings Institution Boston Herald Fox News Salon NPR KGAN Investor's Business Daily National Review Mother Jones Los Angeles Times Blue Virginia Richmond Times-Dispatch The Daily Signal Common Dreams NPR صوت الإمارات Just The News City Journal The New Republic NBC News Post Register Richmond Times-Dispatch The Federalist The Boston Globe Los Angeles Times Middle East Forum New York Post The Daily Signal Mother Jones The New York Times TelegraphHerald.com Investor's Business Daily City Journal The New Republic USA Today Legis1 New York Post Fox News Vox Los Angeles Times Briefs Finance The Dispatch Washington Examiner Salon The Washington Post Energies Media The Center Square The Daily Signal Salon NPR PinalCentral.com The Dispatch Fox News The Boston Globe Los Angeles Times news.lavx.hu Investor's Business Daily The Daily Signal Common Dreams NPR starvedrock.media Reason National Review Middle East Eye Al Jazeera The Times of India Just The News The Federalist The New Republic The Washington Post The Hill Richmond Times-Dispatch National Review Salon USA Today C-SPAN Just The News Newsmax The Daily Beast Canary Media Environmental Leader The Center Square The Federalist

Perspectivity reads the coverage — not just who published it.

Read the full interactive analysis →