Introduction
The article published by The New York Times reports that the Trump administration is drafting executive orders to dramatically accelerate the expansion of nuclear power in the United States. The piece also claims that the U.S. has fallen behind other countries such as China and Russia in deploying modern nuclear technology. Readers flagged the article, seeking clarity on whether the U.S. has truly lagged in nuclear development despite its reliability and why proactive steps haven’t been taken sooner.
Historical Context
Nuclear energy has been a part of the U.S. power grid since the 1950s, with significant contributions to carbon-free electricity generation. However, after high-profile accidents such as Three Mile Island and Fukushima, public perception shifted, leading to increased regulatory scrutiny and high construction costs. Meanwhile, countries like China and Russia continued investing in new nuclear technologies and exports. Despite innovations in small modular reactors (SMRs) and climate urgency, the pace of nuclear expansion in the U.S. remained cautious—restricted by regulatory barriers, market conditions, and political disagreements.
Fact-Checking Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The United States has fallen behind China in expanding nuclear power.”
This claim is accurate. China has rapidly expanded its nuclear capabilities over the past decade. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), China added 21 nuclear reactors between 2017 and 2023 and currently has at least 23 under construction. Meanwhile, the U.S. has added only two commercial reactors in the same timeframe (Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia), with few under active development.
The World Nuclear Association confirms that China’s nuclear generation capacity has grown significantly, with consistent state funding and streamlined approvals. The U.S., by contrast, faces longer approval times due to complex permitting processes through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and declining market interest.
Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
Claim #2: “They would also set a goal of quadrupling the size of the nation’s nuclear fleet from nearly 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by 2050.”
This claim is mostly accurate with ambitious intent but lacks feasibility context. As of 2024, U.S. nuclear capacity stands at roughly 95–100 gigawatts. Quadrupling that to 400 gigawatts would involve building an unprecedented number of new nuclear plants or small modular reactors within 25 years.
To put it in context, each large-scale nuclear power plant can provide 1–1.5 gigawatts. Reaching 400 gigawatts would require deploying roughly 300 new plants by 2050, a pace significantly faster than historical deployment rates, facing current obstacles like financing, public support, and prolonged permitting timelines.
Though the policy goal is clearly articulated, it overstates the ease with which such capacity can be achieved under current U.S. infrastructure, regulation, and workforce capacity.
Source: https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/us-nuclear-energy-overview
Claim #3: “87 percent of nuclear reactors installed worldwide since 2017 are based on Russian and Chinese designs.”
This claim is largely true but requires clarification. According to the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and data from the IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), the majority of newly completed nuclear projects since 2017 have indeed been built using designs from Russian state company Rosatom and Chinese domestic technology.
Russia’s VVER models and China’s Hualong One reactors have been installed across the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe. This reflects aggressive foreign policy tactics, including financing packages and turnkey construction. In contrast, U.S.-based reactor vendors have struggled to compete in the global market due to lack of government-backed financing and long NRC approval times.
Source: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/revitalizing-american-nuclear-energy-competitive-world/
Claim #4: “The Department of Defense would play a prominent role in ordering reactors and installing them on military bases.”
This is plausible and aligns with current federal interest. While the draft orders are not finalized public policy as of yet, the Department of Defense (DoD) has shown growing interest in microreactors to increase energy resilience on remote and vulnerable bases.
The Department of Energy’s Project Pele and the DoD’s Strategic Capabilities Office both support the deployment of small modular and microreactors for military use. Multiple pilot projects are underway, including a test deployment at the Idaho National Laboratory. This pattern supports the claim that the Department of Defense could feasibly support and initiate nuclear roll-outs at military sites.
Source: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-and-dod-advance-microreactor-technology
Conclusion
The article accurately captures the Trump administration’s intention to reset the regulatory environment and prioritize nuclear development. It correctly states that the U.S. has lagged behind China and Russia in deploying new nuclear technologies and highlights ambitious, though possibly impractical, goals for future capacity. There is no evidence of direct misinformation in the article. However, the piece would benefit from providing deeper context regarding the challenges of scaling nuclear energy in the U.S.—particularly in terms of costs, permitting, and public trust. The narrative leans toward urgency, but avoids overt bias or factual exaggeration.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to navigate today’s headlines with clarity? Download the DBUNK app now or follow us on social media to stay informed and challenge misinformation—no matter where it hides.
