Trump’s Nuclear Obsession

The full article by Karl Grossman and Harvey Wasserman, originally published on December 24, 2025 in CounterPunch, is available here.

The Trump family is now directly investing in atomic energy.  Its money-losing Truth Social company has become a part owner of a major fusion nuclear power project.

Among much more, the investments mean the Trump family stands to profit directly from White House attacks on wind, solar and other cheap, clean renewable energies which for decades have been driving fusion, fission and fossil fuels toward economic oblivion.

“A Trump-sponsored business is once again betting on an industry that the president has championed, further entwining his personal fortunes in sectors that his administration is both supporting and overseeing,” reported an article on the front page of the business section of the New York Times last week. “This one is in the nuclear power sector. TAE Technologies, which is developing fusion energy, said on Thursday that it planned to merge with Trump Media & Technology Group. President Trump is the largest shareholder of the money-losing social media and crypto investment firm that bears his name, and he will remain a major investor in the combined company.”

The headline of the piece: “Trump’s Push Into Nuclear Is Raising Questions.”

The primary asks have to do with economic conflicts of interest, and public safety.

“The deal, should it be completed,” the article continued, “would put Mr. Trump in competition with other energy companies over which his administration holds financial and regulatory sway. Already, the president has sought to gut safety oversight of nuclear power plants and lower thresholds for human radiation exposure.”

CNN reported: “Nuclear fusion companies are regulated by the federal government and will likely need Uncle Sam’s deep research and even deeper pockets to become commercially viable. The merger needs to be approved by federal regulators—some of whom were nominated by Trump.”

CNN quoted Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, as saying: “There is a clear conflict of interest here. Every other president since the Civil War has divested from business interests that would conflict with official duties. President Trump has done the opposite.” Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

“Having the president and his family have a large stake in a particular energy source is very problematic,” said Peter A. Bradford, who previously served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency meant to oversee the nuclear industry in the United States, in the Times article.

“The Trump administration has sought to accelerate nuclear power technology—including fusion, which remains unproven,” Bradford said. “That support has come in the form of federal loans and grants, as well as executive orders directing the NRC to review and approve applications more quickly.”

Still, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement that “neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.” And the Times piece continued, “a spokeswoman for Trump Media” said the company was “scrupulously following all applicable rules and regulations, and any hypothetical speculation about ethics violations is wholly unsupported by the facts.”

It went on that “Trump’s stake in Trump Media, recently valued at $1.6 billion, is held in a trust managed by Donald Trump Jr., his eldest son. Trump Media is the parent company of Truth Social, the struggling social-media platform. The merger would set Trump Media in a new strategic direction, while giving TAE a stock market listing as it continues to develop its nuclear fusion technology.”

The Guardian quoted the CEO of Trump Media, Devin Nunes, the arch-conservative former member of the House of Representatives from California and close to Trump, who is currently chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, saying Trump Media has “built un-cancellable infrastructure to secure free expression online for Americans. And now we’re taking a big step forward toward a revolutionary technology that will cement America’s global energy dominance for generations.” Nunes is the would be co-CEO of the merged company.

A current member of the US House, Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement quoted in Politico that the deal raises “significant concerns” about conflicts of interest and avenues for potential corruption. “The President has consistently used both government powers and taxpayer money to benefit his own financial interests and those of his family and political allies. This merger will necessitate congressional oversight to ensure that the U.S. government and public funds are properly directed towards fusion research and development in ways that benefit the American people, as opposed to the Trump family and their corporate holdings.”

By federal law (the Price-Anderson Act of 1957) the US commercial atomic power industry has been shielded from liability in major accidents it might cause. The “Nuclear Clause” in every US homeowner’s insurance policy explicitly denies coverage for losses or damages caused, directly or indirectly, caused by a nuclear reactor accident.

As his company fuses with the atomic industry, Trump acquires a direct financial interest in gutting atomic oversight—which he has already been busy doing. In June Trump fired NRC Chairman Christopher T. Hanson. No other president has ever fired an NRC Commissioner.

Earlier, more than 100 NRC staff were purged by Elon Musk’s DOGE operation. There has been a stream of Trump executive orders calling for a sharp reduction in radiation standards, expedited approval by the NRC of nuclear plant license applications, and a demand to quadruple nuke power in the United States—from the current 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts in 2050. Such a move would require huge federal subsidies and the virtual obliteration of safety regulations. Trump has essentially ordered the NRC to “rubber stamp” all requests from a nuclear industry in which he is now directly invested.

Trump’s Truth Social’s fusion ownership stake removes all doubt about any regulatory neutrality. No presently operating or proposed US atomic reactor can be considered certifiably safe.

Read more here.

Utah Must Learn From Its Nuclear Mistakes

By Lexi Tuddenham, Executive Director at HEAL Utah

In November 2023, the NuScale/Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) project collapsed due to cost overruns that would have saddled subscribers with untenable energy costs for untold decades to come. The NuScale project, dubbed by its creators the “Carbon Free Power Project” (CFPP) — was once hailed as the future of energy in Utah. 

Yet over the course of a decade, while the population and energy needs of communities waiting on the promise of its power grew and grew, the only things it actually delivered were shiny presentations and tours of Idaho National Laboratories, where it would have been built. Despite years of planning, and millions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars spent, the estimated cost of the project had grown 75% from initial estimates from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion. Just between 2021 and 2023, the price at which the plant would have delivered electricity jumped 53 percent, from about $58 per megawatt-hour (MWh) to $89/MWh. All that with a proposed $4 billion federal subsidy that was bringing down the cost by $30/MWh. Without the subsidy the estimated cost before a single shovelful of actual dirt had actually been moved, was nearly $120/MWh, double the cost of solar energy combined with battery storage. 

Meanwhile, the estimated time of completion had continuously been pushed further out. In 2015, it was 8 years out. In 2022, it was still eight years out.  

  • When the CFPP was finally terminated, the CEO of NuScale, John Hopkins, famously stated, “Once you’re on a dead horse, you dismount quickly…”. Unfortunately for the communities banking on the energy of the dead horse, there was no easy exit. Those communities who stuck around until the bitter end of the project were spared the high exit fees that were extracted from those who saw the writing on the wall and departed earlier, but they were left scrambling for energy to keep the lights on for growing businesses and families. The main beneficiaries of the entire boondoggle? Investors in NuScale who speculated on the backs of families trying to make ends meet. 

Just two years later it seems clear that we have not learned our lesson here in Utah. At a time when Utah families and businesses are already stretched thin by soaring housing costs, rising groceries, and growing utility bills, our state and utilities are doubling down on risky, slow, and expensive nuclear power projects – the most unaffordable option.  

Back then, we were told these theoretical power plants were for electrification–to clear our dirty air and power the economic vitality of rural communities facing a decline in fossil fuel generation. Now, as the power landscape of the U.S. has shifted with the ballooning of AI data centers and their much-vaunted need for power, we are told that new nuclear development is essential for data centers, and that “energy superabundance” is just around the corner.  

What is not clear in any of this is how communities will benefit. The same pattern repeats itself. Startups naive to nuclear energy production, and even energy production in general, are able to garner millions of dollars infederal subsidies (i.e. your taxpayer dollars) and private investment as they sell their prospective projects to both hyperscalers like Google and Meta and growing communities desperate for energy. Data centers have yet to account for how they will obtain sufficient water for operations, keep ratepayers from paying sky-high rates for electricity, and displace other power needs from the grid. Jobs, community revitalization, and a brighter future are promised to those who most need them. But when the project collapses or the company goes bankrupt, communities are left holding the bag. They still need power, and in some cases are paying for energy they will never get. 

Public transparency is key. 

Here in Utah, Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) recently issued a heavily redacted request to the Public Service Commission to expedite its own power purchase agreement with Bill Gates’ Terrapower Natrium nuclear reactor project in Wyoming. Details that would clarify whether the project might actually provide “system-wide benefits…to ratepayers,” as RMP testified, are marked “confidential.” 

Meanwhile, EnergySolutions, a radioactive and hazardous waste disposal company recently rebranded as a “nuclear energy” company, is actively pursuing a secretive effort to import over 1 million tons of radioactive waste over international borders into the U.S. for permanent disposal. There was limited public information made available about the request, and no local comment opportunity. 

As we are faced with an alphabet soup of new reactor designs and companies, it is essential that we ask key questions. At a bare minimum these should include–what is the company’s experience and expertise in this area? How will a public purchase agreement be designed to protect consumers from ballooning future costs? How will transparency be ensured so that a competitive and fair process transpires and true costs, plans for radioactive waste disposal, and timelines are disclosed and the company advancing them can be held accountable? And how will community risks and benefits be integrated into the decision making process? 

Too often, the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders wave away community concerns, telling people to “trust the experts,” while burying legitimate questions about safety in jargon. If we are to seriously consider nuclear power, we need a clear-eyed assessment of its real costs, risks, and trade-offs. 

Overstating the case for safety and affordability does not serve to bring the people of Utah closer to safe, clean, reliable, affordable, and abundant energy. What is truly needed is an honest reckoning with the facts.