By Kennedy Maize
Washington’s latest attempt to deal with the nation’s high-level nuclear waste– mostly used nuclear fuel–kicking the canisters down multiple roads, is already generating political backlash. It’s likely to get worse for the grandiose, hasty, and convoluted Trump administration plan. DOE has indicated implementing may require Congress to pass new legislation and appropriate necessary funds.
On January 28, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a 25-page “Request for Information” (more commonly called a “Request for Proposals) to all 50 states for a major new nuclear program to create what the agency dubbed “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses,” with a response date of (without any apparent irony) of April 1.
These campuses would, according to the information request, “anchor integrated, full‑cycle nuclear ecosystems that could co-locate and support the entire nuclear value chain while exploring durable pathways for managing used nuclear materials in a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible manner. These campuses must support functions such as fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and disposition of waste, and could additionally support functions such as advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co‑located data centers….”
DOE also proposed a timetable that strains credulity. The information request states, “DOE envisions these campuses would be deployed quickly, with initial facilities online in the 2027 timeframe.”
DOE claims its waste plan could yield up to $50 billion in private investment, without specifying how much federal money might attach to the honor of being chosen to house the nation’s spent nuclear fuel.
The agency got responses from 26 states. On July 28, six months after the information request, DOE announced it had selected five state proposals for further discussion: Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho.
The day before the DOE announcement, POLITICO reported on a leaked document that said the Trump administration is “seeking changes to federal law to allow the Department of Energy to partner with states willing to store waste generated at the nation’s nuclear reactors, according to the document laying out ‘legislative principles.’”
It should come as no surprise that all five chosen for the program are states that Trump carried in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections. DOE is on record in court documents acknowledging that cancelling a large number of agency awards from the Biden administration last October that resulted in the “differential termination of Blue State grants and the non-termination of non-Blue State grants was not based on a rational connection between the recipient’s location and/or place of performance and DOE’s past or current agency priorities.”
In a news release announcing the selection of the five states, Energy Secretary Chris Wright crowed, “These campuses will be massive generators of economic growth, create thousands of high-paying jobs, and be crucial to unleashing America’s nuclear renaissance. The innovative concept is a direct result of President Trump’s leadership and ambitious directives to restore the domestic nuclear fuel cycle and get America’s nuclear industry growing again.”
In the same news release, all five state Republican governors bowed their heads and showered praise on Trump and Wright. Idaho’s Gov. Brad Little said, “We look forward to working with DOE to continue advancing every stage of the nuclear lifecycle, strengthening our nation’s energy security, creating good-paying jobs, and ensuring Idaho remains the home of America’s nuclear renaissance.” The Gem State already houses DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory on the state’s south easterndesert.
Tennessee’s Gov. Bill Lee said, “As our state answered the call during the Manhattan Project and helped shape the course of history, Tennessee stands ready once again to advance the safe, reliable energy solutions our nation depends on.”
Then the news hit home, where nuke waste is not a national problem but a local threat. Volunteering to house the nation’s high-level nuclear waste can be politically toxic, which is why it now generally sits, safely encased in steel and concrete canisters, totaling some 95,000 metric tons, at the reactor sites where it was generated.
In Idaho, the Idaho Capital Sun reported, “Three of Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s opponents in the 2026 general election say they have concerns with Little’s proposed partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy to bring a new nuclear lifecycle innovation campus to Idaho.
“Democrat Terri Pickens, independent John Stegner and a Constitution Party candidate who legally changed his name from Marvin Richardson to Pro-Life all said this week they have deep concerns about the agreement’s requirement to accept and store spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in Idaho.”
Cally Younger, administrator of the Idaho Office of Species, Mineral and Energy Coordination, told the Idaho Statesman that the DOE plan contains no money and Congress hasn’t appropriated any. She said Idaho would be unlikely to move forward if it meant storing spent fuel forever, even if it did provide a private sector economic boost. “That’s great, and that’s what got us to apply, but if we’re really talking about permanent storage, they’re going to have to pay.”
Boise State Public Radio noted that “since 1995, Idaho and the federal government have had an agreement to keep nuclear waste out of the Gem State. The deal, signed by former Gov. Phil Batt, kept tons of nuclear waste out of the state.”
In Tennessee, Republican state representative Ed Butler sent a letter to Gov. Lee opposing participation in the DOE project. He wrote, “We are a state of innovation and advanced technology, not a dump site. With the innovation and beauty of Tennessee, there are no economic benefits that will outweigh the potential environmental risks associated with the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus. We must protect Tennessee and Tennesseans from anything that will potentially harm the state and its citizens. I implore you to protect this state and its citizens.”
Tennessee Democratic State Sen. Heidi Campbell sent Lee a letter, stating, “Tennessee taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in these companies and our families are still paying more for electricity than ever before,” Campbell said. “The governor needs to explain, in plain terms, if this will deliver lower-cost power to Tennesseans, or whether we’re just subsidizing private companies and their shareholders.”
For his part, Lee began a bit of a backward two-step. He told the Tennessean in Nashville, “This is really a big deal. I’m very excited about it. We should pursue it to the end. But we have a lot of questions to ask about what the details look like before we make a decision.”
Lee added, “We don’t even know that they’re asking us for a site. As those things develop, we clearly will engage stakeholders and there’ll be a transparent process around that before any decisions are made.”
The Quad Report, covering energy policy and politics
