A lengthy analysis in The Washington Post has questioned the potential success of the Trump administrations plans for a roll out of large-scale NPPs. The article, Trump says a nuclear renaissance is coming. The deals aren’t, came just a few weeks after US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced $17.5bn in loans for 10 new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. Previously in October 2025, the administration had unveiled a plan to build a new fleet of reactors financed by investment from Japan.
“American taxpayers were assured that, rather than presenting a big financial risk, the partnership would create a windfall for them, as the federal government was claiming an ownership stake in Westinghouse that could be cashed in for billions if the company goes public down the road,” The Post said.
It added: “Eight months after this partnership was unveiled, Japan has yet to commit money to a single large reactor. No utility has ordered an AP1000. The administration has declined to identify any customers for the reactors it says are coming, and industry executives involved in trying to make the projects happen say President Donald Trump’s plan to boost nuclear power is long on aspiration and light on binding agreements.”
The Post noted that the only major new commercial reactors that have come online in recent decades are the two AP1000s at the Vogtle plant in Georgia that were vastly overbudget and far behind schedule, while two AP1000s planned for the VC Summer plant in South Carolina were cancelled after billions of dollars had been invested in the project.
“The Trump administration, which made reviving nuclear power a pillar in its energy agenda, says things are different now,” The Post said. “It points to its push to relax federal nuclear safety regulations, the incubation of commercially untested technologies by the Energy Department and its weaponisation of tariffs to pressure allies to fund US projects. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told reporters recently that hyperscalers — the tech companies building massive data centers to fuel the growth of artificial intelligence — are so hungry for power that they are eagerly lining up to invest in big nuclear projects.”
The $17.5bn in loan facilities to support the purchase of long-lead components for the construction of 10 new AP1000s was framed as game-changing. However, industry officials interviewed by The Post described them as marginally helpful, with one calling them a non-event. “It was telling, they said, that none of the seven utilities that the administration says are interested would identify themselves. Utility executives still risk panicking their shareholders if they commit to a large nuclear project.”
Tech companies are equally cautious, The Post said. While they are willing to sign long-term contracts to buy nuclear power, even at elevated prices, they are just as averse as utilities are to taking ownership of plants, which could leave them strapped with billions of dollars in unplanned costs if things go poorly, as happened in Georgia and South Carolina.
“There have been a lot of press releases, but we are not making forward progress,” said Paul Tice, a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics. He stressed the need for the US to revive its nuclear industry, as energy demand soars and China moves to overtake the US in nuclear energy production. But he said: “The spin is not getting us to the order book we need. We’re not moving the needle at all.”
The failure of support from Japan for AP1000 construction is particularly frustrating for industry insiders, who say the US government must provide much bigger subsidies from its own taxpayers before foreign governments invest. “The Commerce Department declined to answer detailed questions about how the agreement with Japan and a similar partnership with South Korea are structured, whether any deals involving AP1000s are underway or what obligations either country has to invest any money,” The Post noted.
“The industry has never seen anything like this before,” said Kevin Kong, CEO of Everstar, a technology firm focused on using AI to more efficiently and safely build large reactors like the AP1000. “There is no formal process.” The Post said Kong has been to Asia several times seeking to tap into the Japanese and South Korean investment the administration said would come. Companies there have told him and other US nuclear executives that they will be investing only in viable projects with strong profit potential and will not be absorbing the risk that US utilities and tech firms are refusing to take on.
The Post sought comment from the three industrial firms Japan identified in an October fact sheet as potential partners in constructing AP1000 reactors with up to $100 billion of Japanese government money. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and IHI, did not respond. Toshiba, wrote in an email: “At this time, Toshiba has not made any specific decisions regarding this matter and is unable to provide further comment at this stage.”
There is an obvious reason for the hesitance, said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the commissions that regulate utilities in New York and Maine. He told The Post: “Nuclear power has never been able to compete economically in the competitive markets used in the U.S. for procuring electricity generation. Nothing that has happened recently has given any sign of changing that. This is an industry that has lived on promises and prophecies and hype for a long time now. The burden is on them to do something more than just tell you they have some really good ideas for the next go-round.”
Armond Cohen, executive director of Clean Air Task Force, a clean-energy advocacy group that supports nuclear power, told The Post: “You have a need here for an even greater government involvement. A utility could announce a $15bn project to build the next unit, and it would not even be that price tag that would be the problem. It is the possibility that it will cost $17bn and the shareholders would have to swallow the difference.”
