Accelerating Nuclear Development Under Trump’s Strategy

The Trump administration has embarked on an aggressive strategy to revive and expand the United States nuclear energy sector, framing it as critical to national security and energy dominance. In his second term, President Donald Trump has prioritized policies to boost domestic uranium supply, streamline reactor approvals, and even revisit nuclear fuel recycling. These moves are aimed at accelerating nuclear development to meet rising energy demands – from powering new artificial intelligence data centres to reducing reliance on foreign uranium. Industry officials note that the White House is striving for nothing less than a nuclear “renaissance,” pushing to quadruple U.S. nuclear power by 2050 and positioning nuclear energy at the centre of America’s future power needs.

Reviving Waste Reprocessing: A striking element of Trump’s strategy is a fresh look at nuclear waste reprocessing – a practice the U.S. largely abandoned decades ago. One draft executive order titled “Ushering in a Nuclear Renaissance” directs the Energy Secretary to assess pathways for recycling spent nuclear fuel and using plutonium to fuel reactors. The order calls for a plan to efficiently transfer spent fuel from reactor sites to a commercial recycling facility, effectively reviving the idea that today’s waste could be tomorrow’s fuel. This marks a sharp policy shift: more than 90,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel are stored at U.S. reactor sites currently, and officials see reprocessing as a way to both shrink this waste stockpile and cut dependence on imported uranium (much of which comes from abroad, including Russia). Indeed, some in Washington view fuel recycling as a means to bolster energy security by tapping an energy source literally sitting in waste pools. However, this initiative is not without controversy. Nonproliferation experts have long opposed commercial reprocessing due to the risk of plutonium extraction being misused for weapons, calling it “the worst possible way to manage nuclear waste” given proliferation and cost concerns. The Trump administration appears willing to challenge that conventional wisdom: the draft order would even halt a program to dilute and dispose of surplus weapons plutonium, making that material available for advanced reactor fuel instead. In short, Trump’s team is signalling a readiness to overturn past taboos in order to secure what it views as a strategic nuclear fuel advantage.

Fast-Tracking Uranium Mining: Alongside fuel recycling, the U.S. is moving to expedite domestic uranium production. On May 13, 2025, the Interior Department announced it will fast-track permitting for a new uranium mine in Utah, compressing an environmental assessment that would normally take about a year into just 14 days. This dramatic shortening of review timelines is part of President Trump’s broader push to “shorten environmental reviews and speed the construction” of energy projects, especially those deemed vital for national energy needs. Trump began his term by declaring a “national energy emergency” to justify these extraordinary measures. The rationale is clear: in 2023, U.S. nuclear reactors relied on 99% imported uranium for their fuel, a situation the administration calls “dangerously reliant” on foreign supply. By invoking emergency powers under laws like NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, regulators have been directed to slash permitting times – turning year-long reviews into two-week paperwork exercises. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum argues this decisive action is needed to secure America’s energy future after years of “climate extremist” policies, and he touts the Utah mine’s quick approval as exactly the kind of bold step required. The Velvet-Wood uranium project in Utah, for example, will not only produce fuel for nuclear plants but also vanadium for industry, and its developers hail the fast-track permit as a “game changer” that recognizes the strategic importance of domestic uranium. By condensing reviews to mere days, the administration hopes to jump-start uranium mining and re-establish a domestic nuclear fuel cycle at unprecedented speed. (It’s worth noting, however, that this approach has sparked legal challenges – at least fifteen states are suing, arguing no true emergency exists and that bypassing thorough environmental reviews is unlawful.)

Streamlining Reactor Approvals: Perhaps the most consequential pillar of Trump’s nuclear strategy is the effort to streamline the approval of new reactors and advanced nuclear technologies. Internal documents and draft executive orders reviewed in May 2025 reveal plans to weaken the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – the nation’s nuclear safety regulator – in order to accelerate reactor licensing. Four draft orders circulating in the White House would overhaul what the administration views as an overly cautious, “risk-averse” regulatory regime that has slowed nuclear growth. The White House argues that the NRC, which has approved only five new reactors since 1978 (with only two actually built in that time), is overly focused on eliminating even “remote” risks instead of balancing safety with urgent energy and geopolitical needs. To change this, one order would direct a rapid rewrite of radiation safety rules to reflect a more “flexible” standard, while another would give the Department of Energy authority to fast-track development of advanced nuclear plants – particularly small modular reactors and other new designs to power energy-intensive data centers fueling the AI boom. The administration’s view is that, with no major U.S. nuclear accidents since Three Mile Island in 1979, the pendulum of regulation can swing back toward efficiency and innovation without endangering the public. In practice, Trump already signed an order in February 2025 that forces the NRC to route its major decisions through the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, effectively giving the President power to overrule the NRC’s experts. This unprecedented move to strip some independence from the nuclear regulator has alarmed safety advocates, but it underscores the administration’s determination to remove bureaucratic hurdles. By streamlining reactor approvals, cutting red tape, and actively encouraging private-sector nuclear projects (from next-generation reactors to specialized power plants for tech industries), the U.S. is visibly accelerating its nuclear sector. The policy bet is that a more muscular, government-driven push – even at the expense of regulatory tradition – will revive U.S. leadership in nuclear technology and help meet surging electricity demand in the coming decades.

Canada’s Opportunity and Challenge: A Strong Project, a Slow System

North of the border, Canada’s approach to nuclear development – particularly in uranium mining – has been markedly more cautious and slow-moving. This contrast is exemplified by the case of NexGen’s Energy’s Rook I project in northern Saskatchewan. Rook I is widely regarded as an economically and environmentally strategic venture for Canada: it is poised to become the largest low-cost uranium mine in the world, with a planned output of up to 30 million pounds of high-grade uranium per year over a 24-year mine life. The project’s design has emphasized top-tier environmental standards and sustainability, positioning it as a new benchmark for responsible resource development. In an era when nuclear energy is valued for its low greenhouse gas emissions, a high-grade uranium source like Rook I is not only a potential economic boom (with an estimated C$2.2 billion capital investment) but also an enabler of global clean energy goals. Local Indigenous communities have fully endorsed the project – multiple First Nations and Métis groups in the region have given their support, anticipating long-term jobs and revenue, and even jointly called on Ottawa to approve Rook I without further delay. By all accounts, Rook I is a model project that checks the boxes of economic viability, environmental responsibility, and social license.

Despite these favourable elements, Canada’s federal regulatory process has moved at a glacial pace. NexGen began seeking permits for Rook I in 2019, yet as of mid-2025 the mine still lacks final federal approval. The province of Saskatchewan granted its key permit back in 2021, but the federal impact assessment and licensing – overseen by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and other agencies – have stretched on for years. Two rounds of CNSC hearings for Rook I are now belatedly scheduled and scheduled public hearings — the final step before approval. These hearings are now set for November 19, 2025, and February 9–13, 2026.

While the project is making clear progress and NexGen continues development work in parallel — including awarding its EPCM contract to Hatch, progressing front-end engineering and design (FEED), and securing project financing — the timeline remains long by global standards. This timeline means that if approval comes, it will be roughly seven years after the permitting process began. NexGen’s management and its Indigenous partners have expressed dismay at the sluggish pace. The Clearwater River Dene Nation and Saskatchewan Métis groups issued a rare joint statement in March decrying the delay as “beyond comprehension” and calling Canada’s process “a tyranny of inaction, deceit and dishonesty” that is hurting their communities and all Canadians by postponing a vital project. Every year of delay pushes the start of Rook I’s production further out – initially slated for 2028, operations are now not expected until 2030 at the earliest due to regulatory holdups. For industry observers, Rook I has become a case study in Canada’s permitting paralysis. The project’s fundamentals are strong and the stakeholders aligned, yet it remains mired in red tape. This feeds into a broader concern: a recent study found that Canada is the third-slowest jurisdiction globally in mine development timelines – averaging 27 years from discovery to production, a pace exceeded only by the United States (29 years) and Zambia. Such drawn-out timelines are at odds with the urgent global demand for uranium and clean energy. As John Ciampaglia, CEO of Sprott Asset Management, put it, “new projects are quite critical… They need to come online” to meet a looming uranium supply deficit as demand is projected to triple by 2040. Rook I’s slow journey through Canada’s federal approval process signals that, so far, the country has not matched its clean energy ambitions with on-the-ground efficiency in permitting.

Lessons for Canada: Aligning Priorities with Permitting

The stark contrast between the U.S. and Canadian approaches offers several policy lessons. First, regulatory efficiency has emerged as a decisive factor in advancing nuclear projects. Washington’s willingness to accelerate environmental reviews and licensing – exemplified by the 14-day mine review in Utah – shows how setting firm timelines and emergency authorities can propel projects forward. Canada, by comparison, has maintained a cautious, multilayered review system that, while thorough, is out of step with the urgency of current energy needs. Canadian policymakers are now openly debating reforms: for instance, the idea of a “Rapid Response” permitting office has been floated to cap mine approvals at one year. The message is that lengthy status quo processes undermine strategic projects. When even model projects like Rook I face year after year of procedural delay, it deters investment and delays the benefits (economic and environmental) that such projects promise. Canada could draw from the U.S. example by streamlining its federal impact assessments – not necessarily to the extreme of 14 days, but by setting reasonable time limits, eliminating duplication between federal and provincial reviews, and using special authorities for projects of national importance.

Second, engaging the private sector and local stakeholders early and often can facilitate a smoother path. The U.S. nuclear push under Trump has been characterized by close alignment with industry advocates who argue that current regulations are overkill. By elevating industry voices (for better or worse), the administration ensured that policies like fast-tracking advanced reactors and opening federal lands for energy projects directly address private-sector interests and timelines. In Canada, the Rook I saga actually shows a success on the stakeholder front – Indigenous communities and the provincial government are on board – yet the federal system has not adjusted to reflect this consensus. Canada can learn to treat clear local support as a compelling reason to expedite decisions, rather than proceeding as if it were business-as-usual. Greater coordination between government and project proponents, and a problem-solving mindset within regulatory bodies, would help convert broad support into timely approvals.

Finally, aligning national energy and climate priorities with permitting timelines is crucial. Both the U.S. and Canada publicly emphasize the importance of nuclear energy for reliable clean power and energy security. The difference is that the U.S. has made its permitting process an instrument of that policy – declaring energy emergencies, reforming agencies, and fast-tracking projects to ensure nuclear initiatives proceed at the pace of national demand. Canada’s permitting lag, on the other hand, illustrates a disconnect: ambitious goals for emissions reduction and critical mineral leadership are undermined by slow execution. If Canada wishes to remain a major player in the coming nuclear resurgence – supplying uranium fuel and possibly developing small modular reactors of its own – it must modernize its regulatory approach. That means adopting some of the efficiency seen in the U.S. model. As one industry leader remarked, Ottawa “should follow Washington’s lead in fast-tracking mine approvals” to seize the huge opportunity in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. This doesn’t entail abandoning safety or consultation, but rather streamlining processes so that permits align with policy. By setting clear timeframes, dedicating more resources to regulatory reviews, and using strategic urgency as a guide (e.g. prioritizing projects that support clean energy and economic development), Canada can avoid letting bureaucracy stifle progress.

Conclusion

The comparison of President Trump’s recent nuclear energy strategy with Canada’s handling of the Rook I project highlights a fundamental point: policy intent must be matched by policy action. The United States is charging ahead – leveraging executive power to invigorate its nuclear sector, from fuel supply to reactor construction. This pro-nuclear drive carries controversies and risks, but it demonstrates a commitment to act swiftly in line with national priorities. Canada, possessing world-class uranium resources and a stake in global clean energy transitions, finds itself in a more tentative stance, hampered by protracted permitting. For industry professionals and policymakers, the takeaway is clear. In the race to develop next-generation energy infrastructure, efficiency and timeliness in regulation can spell the difference between leadership and lagging behind. Canada has the ingredients for success – rich resources, community support, and environmental safeguards – but needs to inject greater urgency and clarity into its processes. As the nuclear renaissance gathers pace worldwide, aligning Canada’s permitting timeline with its strategic objectives will determine whether it can ride the wave alongside the U.S., or watch valuable opportunities slip away. The U.S. model shows that, with political will, regulatory systems can adapt to the moment. Canada’s challenge will be to do the same, marrying its high standards with a newfound agility to truly capitalize on projects like Rook I and secure its place in the nuclear future.

Sources:

1. U.S. Department of Energy – Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage (2020).
2. Reuters – “US would assess nuclear waste, plutonium for reactor fuel under draft order.” (May 15, 2025)reuters.comreuters.com.
3. The Washington Post – “Trump considers weakening nuclear agency in bid for more power plants.” (May 9, 2025)washingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com.
4. The Salt Lake Tribune / NYT – “Trump administration to fast-track permits for Utah uranium mine.” (May 13, 2025)sltrib.comsltrib.com.
5. Mining.com – “Reset needed to boost Canada uranium output: Sprott.” (April 2024)mining.commining.com.
6. Mining.com – “Reset needed to boost Canada uranium output: Sprott.” (April 2024)mining.commining.com.
7. Newsfile/Nasdaq – NexGen Energy Ltd. press release on Rook I project. (May 12, 2025)nasdaq.com.