We cannot afford to be dependent on foreign suppliers for energy that can and should be sourced from our own untapped, highly reusable spent fuel we mislabel as “waste.”
Across 33 states, spent nuclear fuel sits idle at 119 reactor sites—a silent testament to a challenge the United States has long postponed. These materials, which still contain over 90 percent of their potential energy, are being mislabeled as “waste” rather than the strategic asset they truly are. Considering that energy resilience is critical to our national strength, it’s time America faces this nuclear reality head-on and reclaims leadership in an industry we pioneered.
The United States helped pioneer nuclear fuel recycling technology over half a century ago. We had the scientific edge, the research infrastructure, and the geopolitical motivation to lead.
But in April 1977, President Carter deferred commercial processing of nuclear fuel to prevent nuclear proliferation. In the decades that followed, policy drift, regulatory inertia, and public misperceptions pushed nuclear power—and with it, advanced fuel cycle technologies—to the periphery of our energy strategy.
Meanwhile, other powers have not hesitated. France is the leader in commercial refined spent fuel, with the United Kingdom, India, and Japan also repurposing fuel.
Russia now supplies over 40 percent of the world’s enriched uranium fuel. China is aggressively investing in closed fuel cycles, refining spent fuel into usable reactor-grade material to power its growing fleet of advanced reactors. Even countries with far less technical expertise than the US have moved to reprocess and reuse. While they build, we bury.
This is not just an energy issue. It is a national security imperative. Our military forces must develop deployable nuclear-powered generation platforms to support expeditionary force energy requirements. We will also require more energy as data centers, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence proliferate. Government mandates for electric vehicles will require tremendous amounts of power generation. Currently, 60 percent of our energy production comes from fossil fuels. Wind and solar do not effectively compete with nuclear energy in efficiency—we must reevaluate our energy mix.
US leadership in nuclear energy has always been a pillar of our global influence. Civilian nuclear cooperation agreements known as 123 Agreements underpin our ability to shape nonproliferation norms and ensure that peaceful nuclear technology does not become a backdoor for weapons programs. But when we fall behind in fuel cycle innovation and market share, we lose leverage. Our allies look elsewhere. Our adversaries step in. And our energy infrastructure becomes more vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, including enriched uranium imports from geopolitical rivals.
We cannot afford to be dependent on foreign suppliers for energy that can and should be sourced from our own untapped, highly reusable spent fuel we mislabel as “waste.” Re-shoring nuclear recycling capabilities would transform the spent fuel dilemma into a strategic advantage.
Reprocessed nuclear fuel can be used in next-generation reactors that are safer, smaller, and more efficient. These advanced systems, many of which are being developed by American innovators, could provide reliable, clean power for decades with minimal emissions. A robust domestic refinement capability would also drastically reduce the volume and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel, easing long-standing concerns about long-term storage on-site at plants.
Moreover, re-establishing a complete nuclear fuel cycle at home would invigorate our industrial base, create high-skilled jobs, and offer export opportunities to trusted partners throughout the Western Hemisphere. Countries across Latin America and the Caribbean are exploring nuclear options as they seek clean, dependable energy to power development and mitigate climate risks. They’re watching closely to see whether the US can lead not only in rhetoric but in technology and practice.
But leadership won’t return on its own. It requires vision and investment. President Trump last month showed his commitment by signing four executive orders aimed at streamlining the approval and adoption of advanced nuclear power, including reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The public must be engaged with science-based, transparent communication about the benefits and safety of modern nuclear solutions.
Yet in Washington, the conversation is too often dominated by legacy voices derived from Jimmy Carter’s April 1977 edict. The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), led by former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, continues to focus on proliferation concerns rooted in Cold War-era paradigms. These arguments, however well-meaning, risk slowing the very innovation we need to remain competitive and secure.
We also cannot continue to conflate nuclear weapons proliferation with developing innovative spent fuel reprocessing. While we abandoned research and application of spent fuel refinement, other commercial and security competitors have taken the lead.
Striking the right balance between spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and mining will provide our country with greater flexibility in establishing and remaining energy dominant.
Together, the United States can do this. We must. The strategic, economic, and environmental benefits of re-shoring nuclear fuel repurposing are too significant to ignore. For the sake of our energy security, our geopolitical standing, and our responsibility to future generations, the United States must once again lead—not lag—in the nuclear frontier we helped create.
Now is the time to stop sitting on our energy legacy. Let’s refine spent nuclear fuel into our future.
Sergio De La Pena is the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs
