By Elliot Beamer, US Environmental Policy Student
April 4, 2025
The beginning of the Trump administration has come with a flurry of executive action and legal challenges. It’s difficult to keep up with it all. President Trump’s Executive Order “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” has flown somewhat under the radar – but could have devastating environmental consequences. The executive order states: “No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law,” and asserts the control of the White House over regulatory agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[1] The EO has been challenged by the Democratic National Committee.[2] However, nuclear energy experts are worried. President Trump’s executive order threatening the independence of nuclear regulators risks a nuclear accident, endangers the safety of future nuclear energy development, and risks repeating history of environmental injustice toward indigenous communities.
Trump has previously made comments complaining about overregulation in the nuclear industry – and could force quicker approvals and less regulation to bolster nuclear energy.[3] Nuclear regulators should be independent. History proves this – an investigation into the Fukushima nuclear disaster by the National Diet of Japan found that the accident was caused by collusion between the government and regulators.[4] Proponents of Small Modular Reactors have lobbied the NRC to let them deploy their untested nuclear technology across the country, and Trump’s hunger for profits could lead him to pressure the NRC to bypass necessary regulations.[5] The technology is promising, but proper regulations must be followed in order to ensure its success and safety. A nuclear accident could not only be disastrous in terms of deaths and potential contamination, but it would likely be a huge blow to the nuclear industry, and could serve to raise energy prices for all Americans.[6]
Another angle to consider is often overlooked – the impact on indigenous communities. Nuclear colonialism is a term used that refers to the way in which governments and companies intentionally target and devastate indigenous communities for the nuclear production process, from testing, to mining, to storing waste on indigenous land.[7] Indigenous communities are targeted because of their Anti-nuclear scholars like M.V. Ramana argue that indigenous communities are used as ‘sacrificial zones’ in the production of nuclear energy, far away from where elites and political decision makers live.[8] Legally, indigenous communities often lack full sovereignty or are subject to federal oversight, which weakens their ability to refuse hazardous projects.[9] Economically, many tribes face underinvestment and poverty, forcing them to accept dangerous developments like uranium mining or waste storage in exchange for short-term financial benefits.[10]According to a study done by the Sierra Club, the production of nuclear energy has had severe negative effects on the health of indigenous populations, contaminating the air and sometimes the water supply of tribes like the Onondaga in upstate New York.[11] The EPA has since worked to clean up old uranium mines, and in general regulators are now more aware of the harm caused to indigenous communities.[12] However, Trump’s reckless, profit above all else approach is exactly what caused this harm in the first place. If he is allowed to dictate regulatory interpretations instead of allowing regulators to remain independent, indigenous communities are at risk. An accident will happen without rigorous regulation, and it is most likely to affect indigenous tribes first.
New development of safe nuclear energy is necessary, but it cannot happen without proper regulations. Maybe experts believe we cannot solve the climate change crisis without nuclear energy. Nuclear’s overall life-cycle emissions are lower than any other renewable fuel source.[13] Nuclear relies on less mined materials than wind and solar, uses less land, and is more cost effective.[14] Nuclear also does not have the variability concerns of wind and solar, it can create constant power matched with demand.[15] Experts believe that advanced reactors can be safe and cost-effective by the 2030s.[16] These reactors would not only be more efficient and cost effective, but could also recycle nuclear waste like they do in France. Of course, there is urgency with climate change. Globally, we need to shift our energy mix dramatically and quickly in order to avoid continuously rising temperatures. Some criticize nuclear because of its high upfront costs and long time to build, but deregulation is not the solution. If we can continue to innovate to make better and safer technology, we can have cleaner energy that doesn’t threaten the future of our planet or the livelihood of our indigenous populations.
[1] White House, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, Executive Order, February 18, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/.
[2]Akin Gump, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” Trump Executive Order Tracker, February 19, 2025, https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/trump-executive-order-tracker/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies#challenges.
[3] Francisco Camacho, “Trump’s Executive Order Puts Nuclear Safety at Risk, Experts Warn,” E&E News, February 24, 2025, https://www.eenews.net/articles/trumps-executive-order-puts-nuclear-safety-at-risk-experts-war.
[4] National Diet of Japan, The Official Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, July 2012, https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf.
[5] Allison Macfarlane, “Trump Just Assaulted the Independence of the Nuclear Regulator. What Could Go Wrong?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 21, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/02/trump-just-assaulted-the-independence-of-the-nuclear-regulator-what-could-go-wrong/.
[6] Ibid.
[7] M.V. Ramana, Nuclear Is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change (New York City: Verso, 2024).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sanjana Manjeshwar, “How Native Land Became a Target for Nuclear Waste,” Inkstick Media, August 16, 2022, https://inkstickmedia.com/how-native-land-became-a-target-for-nuclear-waste/.
[10] Ibid.
[11]Joe Heath, “The Violence of Nuclear Energy Against Indigenous Peoples, Land, Water and Air,” Sierra Club, August 19, 2020, https://www.sierraclub.org/atlantic/blog/2020/08/violence-nuclear-energy-against-indigenous-peoples-land-water-and-air.
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Abandoned Uranium Mine Cleanup,” April 26, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup/aum-cleanup.
[13] Robert R. Rapp, “A Comprehensive Assessment of Nuclear Fuel Recycling: Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts,” Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 39 (March 2023): 100878, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023COCE…3900878R/abstract.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
This was a great read and insightful blog post, Elliot. I often wonder about the potential to streamline the permitting process for some Nuclear reactors, like Small Modular Reactors, which can be justified for being simpler than larger reactors. However, I’m glad I was able to read about how Trump’s initiative to streamline some of this processing can infringe on the safety of indigenous communities. The lack of federal oversight on their territories is a serious concern for NIMBY profiters to exploit the area for nuclear waste storage or development. I agree on the importance of maintaining independence throughout the advisors on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and am fearful of Trump’s attacks on their current method of administration and regulation process because of his direct opposition to necessary climate science. Without their uninfluenced or unchanged scientific analysis, our country allows for greater disproportionate burdens on marginalized communities, such as indigenous tribes. Despite being a federal agency subject to the executive order, I hope the NRC can maintain its mission of providing safe and advanced nuclear industry across the country.
Thanks for the opinion Elliot! I appreciate how all of your points are backed up with clear historical precedent and concrete facts. I think that the conversation space nuclear energy finds itself in is very unique. On one hand, it flies under the radar as many energy-based debates boil down to renewables vs. fossil fuels. On the other hand, nuclear energy carries such salience and a sense of fear due to connections with nuclear weapons and disasters like Fukushima as you mentioned. The facts that you state at the end of the blog regarding nuclear’s cost-effectiveness and low emissions is very compelling and makes me think that this can be a viable energy source nationwide in the near future. However, with the downside risks of nuclear disasters being so damaging, thorough regulation is an absolute must which makes what the government is currently doing very scary. Also, regarding your point on Indigenous communities, the fact that most nuclear testing in America’s past has occurred in states like New Mexico and Nevada with high indigenous populations is also a clear sign of discrimination. So, if a bunch of nuclear energy reactors were built, history points to these being constructed in Indigenous communities. Overall, I totally agree; nuclear is a viable solution but we must tread carefully.
Hi Elliot, your blog contains an interesting blend of difficult environmental problems that our country faces today. Prior to reading, I was unfamiliar with the term “Nuclear Colonialism.” This concept is a great example of colonial ideologies still existing today and the catastrophic effects it has on marginalized communities. I believe this environmental injustice issue is widespread, but difficult to address. In general, the movement is hard to solve through effective policy because of political polarization, a power imbalance between wealthy communities and non, and a lack of awareness of this issue. However, I believe the most difficult issue to address is the reality of the interconnectedness of the American landscape. As a product of capitalism and privatization, we create manufactured borders of property to attribute ownership over that land. From a human perspective, this creates clear boundaries that are easy to visualize, trade, and use. However, it is important to acknowledge that the land itself does not adhere to these property lines. Therefore, many issues regarding environmental injustice come from pollution impacting areas beyond the immediate borders of the property. It is far more difficult to regulate spaces such as the atmosphere or bodies of water. Even the land itself is difficult to regulate when pollution spreads into and under the ground. Therefore, these marginalized communities that exist near polluting sites bear the worst outcomes from pollution such as that mentioned in your article.