The Trump administration’s stated aim is to ‘Achieve American Energy Dominance’, which would see the federal government maximise extraction of the country’s energy resources (except its wind and solar resources) in order to provide abundant energy for domestic use and excess fossil fuels for export. In this paradigm, nuclear is favoured both as domestic generation (using US uranium) and as a key technology, in the form of new-build reactors, both to meet domestic needs and to offer a new technology export opportunity.
This was reflected in President Trump’s FY26 discretionary funding request. Introducing the proposed budget, the president promised to “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources”, while at the same time cancelling the Biden administration’s $15bn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) investment in renewable energy and carbon dioxide removal.
The proposed Budget, “reorients Department of Energy funding toward research and development of technologies that could produce an abundance of domestic fossil energy and critical minerals, innovative concepts for nuclear reactors and advanced nuclear fuels, and technologies that promote firm baseload power”. It simultaneously proposes a $5.7bn cut in IIJA funding to the Department of Transportation, which would have stimulated electricity demand via support for electric vehicle charging.
Budgetary requests reflect the Executive Orders (EOs) announced by President Trump since his inauguration in January. On 20 January EO 14156, on Declaring a National Energy Emergency, called on the heads of executive departments and agencies to source and deploy domestic energy resources on Federal lands and beyond, using “lawful emergency authorities” to act, as well as their ongoing authority. Domestic energy resources include uranium, as well as fossil fuels and, despite the characterisation of “unreliable renewable energy”, biofuels, geothermal heat and hydro power.
On 14 February, a second EO (14213) on Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council was again focused on expanding US energy production. The EO said: “it shall be the policy of my Administration to make America energy dominant”. The new Dominance Council would advise the President on how to realise that goal. It would set long-term goals to cut red tape, enhance private sector investments across the energy-producing economy, focus on innovation and eliminate unnecessary regulation. Despite the EOs’ focus on new technology, the President’s funding request would reduce funding at the Advanced Research Project Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) by £260m. The request says this is a “fiscally responsible level for high risk, high reward research advancing reliable energy technologies and other critical and emerging technologies” and it would cut research into green technologies, including a programme to eliminate the use of food crops in the production of transportation fuels.
Both executive orders required reports within weeks and no doubt fed into a second wave of orders focused directly on the nuclear sector.
On 23 May, EO 14301 on Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy complained that “commercial deployment of new nuclear technologies has all but stopped”. It promised a pilot programme outside existing National Laboratories for reactor construction and operation, including reactors ‘‘under contract with and for the account of’’ the Department of Energy (DOE). This promised approval of “at least three reactors… with the goal of achieving criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4, 2026”. It included evaluation of the reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel from the DOE and Department of Defense.
However, the pressure to reduce government spending remains clear. Despite the urgency of developing new reactors, the Office of Nuclear Energy will see its budget reduced by $408 m, if the Budget Request is granted. The proposal “reduces funding for non-essential research on nuclear energy to focus on what is truly needed to achieve national dominance in nuclear technology”, which would be developing innovative concepts for nuclear reactors and researching advanced nuclear fuels. Despite the EO’s reallocation of new reactor pilot programmes to take place outside the Idaho National Laboratory, the facility’s funding is maintained.
Funding for renewable energy programmes in the ‘Green New Deal’ will be reduced by 80%, consistent with a Presidential Memorandum pausing all onshore and offshore wind leasing and permitting. The Budget Request also “restores the name and function of the Office of Fossil Energy”, saying its original purpose was funding for research into technologies that could produce an abundance of domestic fossil energy and critical minerals. However, its funding is cut by $270m.
EO 14301 said that “Our proud history of innovation has succumbed to overregulated complacency” and Executive Order 14300, also published on 23 May, directly addressed reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It complained that “The NRC charges applicants by the hour to process license applications, with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development” and said that the NRC’s “fundamental error” was risk aversion.
A team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was tasked with reorganising the NRC to speed up licence applications. However, the US NRC had already planned to reduce its fees for assessing advanced reactor designs, and published its proposed revised fees in the Federal Register on 19 February. A reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants was required by the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act (the ADVANCE Act) of 2024. For advanced nuclear reactor applicants, section 201 of the Act requires the NRC to apply reduced fees to the NRC review of the Qualifying License Application and its review of the Qualifying Licensing Project Plan, including a construction permit application. This will be effective from 1 October.
Although the NRC’s funding is granted by the government, it is recouped from the industry in the form of annual fees. This year, for example, NRC has proposed to increase the annual fee for an operating reactor from $5,336,000 (in 2024) to $5,359,000, with additional fees for spent fuel storage and reactor decommissioning up from $326,000 (in 2024) to $341,000. Activities in the DOE and DOD are funded directly and form part of the Budget Request. In the Request, the administration proposes to cut the Environmental Management (EM) programme by $389m, although this includes a $178m reduction because responsibility for the Savannah River site in South Carolina will be transferred from the EM programme to the National Nuclear Security Administration. This is because new plutonium production capabilities are to be developed.
The environmental management programme performs activities at 14 active cleanup sites and operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The Budget maintains the Hanford site in Washington at the 2025 enacted level but reduces funding for various cleanup activities at other sites.
