The Trump administration has unveiled a major nuclear energy deal that could bring $80 billion worth of new Westinghouse reactors to the U.S. This agreement, made with Westinghouse’s owners—Canada-based Cameco and Brookfield Asset Management—includes government support for financing and securing permits needed to build the reactors. In return, the U.S. government stands to gain up to a 20% share of profits and possibly a 20% ownership stake if Westinghouse’s value climbs beyond $30 billion by 2029.
This plan is one of the biggest moves in American nuclear energy in decades. It aims to meet the growing power needs of booming industries like artificial intelligence data centers. Analysts predict that, thanks to this deal, Westinghouse could have as many as 10 large reactors under construction by 2030, enough to supply electricity to millions of homes.
But not everyone is comfortable with the setup. Critics warn that having a financial stake in the reactors might make it harder for regulators to stay independent and strict when reviewing safety and environmental risks. Greg Jaczko, former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), worries that pressure on regulators could lead to disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima — all accidents linked to weak oversight.
The White House insists this won’t affect safety rules. They say regulatory processes will stay the same and that the deal won’t change any regulations. However, some experts remain skeptical. Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists fears the administration might push the NRC to approve projects too quickly to meet political goals, potentially overlooking safety concerns.
This is especially concerning given Westinghouse’s recent history. Their last big project in the U.S., building two reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, was delayed by seven years and saw costs soar to $35 billion—more than double the estimate. Problems with Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor, including misfit parts and design issues, also caused headaches. The new reactors will use this same AP1000 design, which relies on factory-made parts assembled on site.
Patty Durand, from Georgians for Affordable Energy, points out another risk. With climate change making droughts more severe, cooling nuclear reactors could become harder, a challenge seen already in the U.S. and Europe. This adds another layer of worry around rushing approvals.
There’s also debate about whether the timeline is realistic. Building a nuclear plant usually takes about a decade due to strict rules and high costs. Patrick White of the Clean Air Task Force says speedy, clear regulation would be good if it maintains safety. But Todd Allen from the University of Michigan questions if there are enough skilled workers to handle so many projects at once.
So far, companies involved have stayed quiet. Cameco declined to comment, and Westinghouse and Brookfield didn’t respond to requests.
This deal shows how the government is betting big on nuclear power to meet future energy needs. But whether it can balance fast growth with strict safety oversight remains a major question.