Why does Trump want to transfer Cold War-era plutonium to nuclear start-ups?
The Trump administration has announced that it has selected several nuclear start-ups to participate in a project that would allow them to use plutonium stockpiles inherited from the Cold War. This plan has alarmed nuclear non-proliferation specialists.
Issued on: 30/05/2026
FRANCE24
By: Sébastian SEIBT
File photo of a billboard of the Los Alamos Study Group taking aim at the US government's plans to ramp up production of plutonium cores taken near Bernalillo, New Mexico on February 17, 2021. © Susan Montoya Bryan, AP
Cold War-era nuclear technology is making a major comeback in the US. The Trump administration has selected several nuclear start-ups that could be granted the right to tap into stocks of military-grade plutonium that were produced until the early 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. This plutonium will then be repurposed as fuel to power small modular reactors.
Five companies, including the Franco-Italian small nuclear reactor specialist Newcleo, will enter into “advanced negotiations” with US authorities to use a portion of the 99 tons of plutonium that the US stores at several highly secure sites.
The selected start-ups will have to prove that they can safely handle and transport the highly unstable radioactive material, which could be used to develop dozens of new nuclear weapons.
Bulky plutonium stockpiles
In May 2025, President Donald Trump put the plutonium issue back on the table – much to the dismay of nuclear non-proliferation experts.
The US has struggled to find a solution for disposing of these stockpiles for decades. “Storing them costs money. We have to ensure they are kept secure and that the plutonium containers do not corrode. These are expenses for stockpiles that the United States doesn’t want anyway, since it no longer needs them for its nuclear arsenal,” explained Noah Mayhew, a non-proliferation and nuclear governance specialist at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP).
At the end of the Cold War, the US and Russia tried to find a way to make use of this plutonium by turning it into a source of energy. It did not work, and the plan was abandoned during Barack Obama’s second term. When Joe Biden came to the White House, he wanted to safely bury the stockpiles in New Mexico. The project, however, stalled because it was too expensive and complicated to implement during his term.
Trump’s return to the White House marked a 180-degree turn on the issue: Why not involve the private sector to find a solution for the plutonium that the government has been desperately trying to get rid of?
The start-up route seemed particularly promising to the new administration since Trump has an ambitious plan for nuclear renewal in the US.
American plutonium rather than Russian uranium?
Among the factors driving the move is AI’s voracious appetite for energy, according to some experts. “One of the main reasons for Donald Trump’s support of nuclear power is the US need to generate ever more electricity to meet the immense demands of the AI industry and its data centres,” explained Mayhew.
The nuclear start-ups selected by the White House all claim they have an urgent need for access to new fuel sources, particularly since the 2022 start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “There is a geopolitical element to this story: indeed, the main supplier of enriched uranium, used as an energy source for these reactors, was Russia,” noted Chris Spedding from the University of Leicester’s Leverhulme Centre for Humanity in Space.
“The United States now wants to produce more electricity [through nuclear power] without having to buy enriched uranium from Russia. But at what cost?” asked Moritz Kütt, a physicist at the University of Hamburg and founder of the Hamburg Nuclear Disarmament Laboratory.
For Donald Trump, it’s time to “Make Plutonium Great Again". Except that “plutonium is one of the most toxic substances ever created, far more so than uranium. Inhaling even a tiny amount is enough to put you at risk of developing lung cancer,” noted Mycle Schneider, coordinator, editor and publisher of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR).
Experts are sceptical of the idea of letting start-ups handle such substances. “It’s extremely difficult to handle, and very strict protocols will be needed to oversee this project,” said Spedding.
Another major proliferation risk, Kütt warns, is that obtaining separated plutonium for weapons is a much easier process than having to enrich uranium. It also doesn’t take much to create a bomb. “While the exact amount of plutonium needed to make a nuclear explosive is classified information, we can say that a mass the size of a melon is sufficient,” explained Schneider.
Proliferation risk
The plutonium stocks right now remain stationary and are stored in highly secure facilities, “but if we allow private companies access to it, we will automatically increase the number of transport routes and the number of people handling it, which will heighten the risk of it being lost or stolen,” warned Spedding.
International organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might be able to help make the process more secure. But beyond security concerns, “the signal sent by the United States is really not a good one,” warned Mayhew. When it comes to nuclear disarmament, “selling plutonium that can be used to make weapons to private companies does not send the best message", he noted.
Spedding concurs. “Other countries might think that if the United States is using plutonium, why shouldn’t they do the same?” he explained.
The argument from start-ups seeking quick access to plutonium as an alternative to enriched uranium from Russia also fails to convince several non-proliferation experts. “It’s not like at gas stations, where you can freely choose the type of fuel for reactors,” noted Kütt. Converting plutonium into an energy source is also very costly and time-consuming. “Producing the very first kilowatt-hour from plutonium would take years, if not decades,” he asserted.
The Trump-style plan to “unlock plutonium” for nuclear start-ups appears poorly conceived and hastily put together, many experts warn.
Then there’s also the issue of a potential conflict of interest. In September 2025, Democratic Senator Edward Markey sent a letter to the US president saying he was concerned that US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is working in the interest of nuclear power company Oklo, of which he used to be a board member before resigning to join the Trump administration.
“I am concerned that your Administration is moving forward with plans to transfer plutonium to Oklo and allow it to build a reprocessing plant not because these proposals make sense for the United States, but because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company’s interest,” wrote Markey.
This raises the question of whether the entire plan is primarily a major PR stunt for these start-ups, which will then be able to raise funds more easily from investors impressed by the White House’s official backing.
This article has been translated from the original in French.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Could Be America's Answer to Russia's Uranium Grip
By Haley Zaremba - May 31, 2026- BLSK Energy has signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with Argonne National Laboratory to commercialize pyroprocessing, a high-temperature method capable of extracting reusable fuel from nuclear waste.
- The U.S. holds approximately 95,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel -- a costly liability that pyroprocessing could turn into a low-cost, carbon-free energy source for advanced fast reactors.
- BLSK aims to bring a pilot plant online by 2034 as the Trump administration pushes to reduce American dependence on Russian-controlled uranium supply chains.
Nuclear fuel is becoming a geopolitical battleground as the world increasingly turns to nuclear energy to contend with skyrocketing energy demand projections. The combination of an oil-based energy crisis emanating out of the Strait of Hormuz, the enormous and ballooning energy needs of artificial intelligence, and the urgent imperative of decarbonization is garnering a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a carbon-free, efficient, and round-the-clock power source.
Moreover, nuclear energy can be produced pretty much anywhere, making it a strategic option for energy independence and autonomy. But the production of nuclear fuel is tied up in a small number of supply chains, many of which are controlled by Russia. And global prices for uranium are rising quickly thanks to increased international demand. The World Nuclear Association projects that global uranium demand will increase 28 percent by 2030 and nearly double by 2040, causing increased competition for nuclear fuel in coming years. Homeshoring and nearshoring nuclear fuel supply chains has therefore become a paramount energy security interest for many nuclear-capable countries.
As the West regains an interest in nuclear energy, however, it may be too late for Europe and the United States to get a foothold in key uranium markets. "Russian and Chinese players have been very keen to secure access to resources in central Asia and Africa, creating a very aggressive competitive environment," Benjamin Godwin at Prism Strategic Intelligence told the Financial Times last year.
The United States is taking several simultaneous approaches to solving this issue, as the Trump administration aims to reestablish the U.S. as the global leader in nuclear energy. The country sits atop massive natural uranium deposits, and could one day become a major producer of nuclear fuel. However, building up those supply chains will take a lot of time, and increased nuclear fuel demand won’t wait. In the interim, there is another major source of uranium supplies that is already in the country’s possession: spent nuclear fuel.
The current administration has invested aggressively into research for recovering usable uranium from discarded nuclear fuel, kept in temporary storage facilities across the nation while they await the development of permanent nuclear waste sites. “Used nuclear fuel is an incredible untapped resource in the United States,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish was recently quoted by World Nuclear News. “The Trump Administration is taking a common-sense approach to making sure we’re using our resources in the most efficient ways possible to secure American energy independence and fuel our economic growth.”
It seems that that investment is already paying off. This month, New York-based nuclear startup BLSK Energy announced a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in Illinois to commercialize a cutting-edge nuclear fuel recovery method based on pyroprocessing technology.
“Pyroprocessing (or pyrochemical processing) is a high-temperature metallurgical process that could enable the reuse of nuclear fuel,” explained Interesting Engineering in a recent report. “When used with fast reactors, it could extract up to 100 times more energy from uranium.”
BLSK Energy aims to bring a pilot plant online by 2034 that would be capable of extracting nuclear material suitable for advanced fast reactors from nuclear waste. “The path ahead is ambitious but achievable,” said BLSK Energy managing director and co-founder Bruce Landrey.
If successful, the technology has enormous potential to turn a major liability into an incredible asset. The United States has accumulated approximately 95,000 tonnes (104,000 tons) of spent nuclear fuel. That fuel is radioactive and poses a major challenge for storage and safe disposal, all of which comes at a serious cost to taxpayers. Recycling that fuel for an inexpensive and climate-friendly energy source is therefore a major win-win.
By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com
Britain’s Nuclear Renaissance Faces Mounting Cost Pressures
By Felicity Bradstock - May 31, 2026- Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C are expected to play a major role in expanding Britain’s nuclear generation capacity and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
- Both projects have faced concerns over delays and rising costs, with Hinkley Point C’s estimated price nearly doubling from its original forecast.
- The U.K. aims to increase nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050, supported by large-scale reactors and emerging small modular reactor technologies.
The United Kingdom is focused on diversifying its energy mix away from fossil fuels to boost energy security and support decarbonisation aims. This includes expanding its nuclear power capacity with the development of two large-scale nuclear plants - Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, as well as developing small modular reactors (SMR). However, its nuclear ambitions have not quite gone to plan, following years of delays and rising construction costs.
Sizewell C in Suffolk, eastern England, received its planning approval in 2022, was greenlit in 2025, and is expected to be operational by around the late 2030s. Investment for the development comes from the government, EDF Energy, Centrica, La Caisse, and Amber Infrastructure Limited. The project is expected to create 17,000 jobs during peak construction, including 7,900 in Suffolk. Once operational, the nuclear plant will produce up to 3.2 GW of clean electricity to power up to 6 million homes.
The government expects the plant to cost around £38 million to develop and says it could provide around £2 billion a year in savings from the electricity system, compared to using other low-carbon technologies. However, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the chair of the public accounts committee, which oversees the work of the National Audit Office (NAO), warned that “Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers… Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.”
To date, the French nuclear firm EDF has invested £1.1 billion for a 12.5 percent stake in the project, while the U.K. government has invested £14.2 billion as the majority stakeholder. The NAO fears that if not properly managed, construction could run significantly over budget, as seen with other nuclear developments in recent years. This would make the break-even time much longer for consumers footing the construction costs through their taxes.
The NAO has, therefore, urged the government to mitigate the risk by using “close monitoring, greater transparency to parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment”.
Lessons for building Sizewell C come from the construction of EDF’s Hinkley Point C plant, the first nuclear plant to be developed in the U.K. in over a decade. Hinkley Point C was approved by the U.K. government in 2013 and was greenlit in 2016. It is expected to begin operations in 2030, a year later than originally planned.
The project has faced several delays and price increases, the most recent of which was announced by EDF in February, adding a projected £2.16 billion. The plant is now expected to cost around £35 billion in total, almost double the original £18 billion 2016 estimate. EDF’s CEO, Bernard Fontana, said the new forecasts were “more realistic” and said that the 2030 launch of operations was “within a range that has not changed” since 2024, when it said operations would start between 2029 and 2031.
Once operational, Hinkley Point C is expected to provide around 7 percent of Britain’s electricity demand. While EDF’s two U.K. nuclear projects could help diversify the country’s energy mix and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, critics worry that the development of the two plants will face further delays and come in significantly over budget. EDF’s only other nuclear project using the same reactor type, at Flamanville in France, became fully operational in December after a delay of over 12 years; meanwhile, costs soared from an initial estimate of £2.85 billion to over £11.4 billion.
In 2025, the U.K. was deemed the “most expensive place in the world” to build nuclear power plants in a government review. This was largely owing to “overly complex” bureaucracy around the sector. Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce said that “radical reset” of the rules around nuclear power could save Britain “tens of billions” in costs and reverse the industry’s “decline” in recent years. This suggests that the government must work to streamline bureaucratic processes without compromising safety and consider other cost-cutting options to avoid cost increases in nuclear development.
At the time, the Taskforce chair, John Fingleton, stated, “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”
In 2024, the U.K. government announced a target to increase the country’s nuclear power capacity fourfold, to 24 GW by 2050. This will be achieved through the development of Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, as well as through the deployment of innovative small-scale nuclear technologies. This is an ambitious target, but through the development of a wide range of nuclear technologies, it could be achievable.
The U.K. government has already published an Advanced Nuclear Framework for the deployment of innovative nuclear projects. Now, it must ensure that its regulatory frameworks and energy policies align with its nuclear power targets and help facilitate nuclear energy development.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
