For decades, politicians have treated nuclear waste as politically radioactive. Now, Republicans are competing to bring it home.
The Department of Energy announced last week that it had signed memorandums of agreement with Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Idaho to explore creating facilities to support the full nuclear fuel cycle — from enrichment of uranium and fabricating fuel to disposing of waste.
Rather than resisting an initiative that could bring more nuclear waste to their states, some Republicans are actively courting the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, arguing they could anchor advanced nuclear industries and bring billions of dollars in investment.
“Tennessee is going to be the absolute leader in America for every part of the [nuclear] life cycle,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). “No state’s better positioned than we are.”
The Trump administration is pitching the campuses as major economic development projects, with DOE saying they “have the potential to attract up to $50 billion in capital investment, generate as much as $10 billion in state and local tax revenue, and create nearly 25,000 jobs.”
Participating states, though, could take on a political liability that has sunk similar efforts. The administration says “disposition” of spent nuclear fuel would be a feature of the campuses, though it has offered few public details about what that would ultimately entail.
Exactly what “disposition” means remains unclear. A leaked White House document circulated on Capitol Hill says the campuses could eventually be designated as options for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste, while DOE’s public materials largely emphasize recycling and reprocessing.
Both Utah and Tennessee indicated in their proposals that they would consider long-term geologic disposal.
States even considering such projects marks a stark departure from decades of nuclear waste politics. Efforts to site waste storage facilities have historically prompted fierce resistance from home-state politicians, most notably in Nevada, where former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made blocking the Yucca Mountain repository a defining political cause.
To this day, Nevada’s congressional delegation continues to campaign and legislate against the project, with Sens. Jacky Rosen (D) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D) sponsoring legislation that would permanently prohibit future consideration of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s permanent repository.
Lemonade out of nuclear lemons
Several Republicans are speaking glowingly about the new program’s potential, despite the uncertainty about whether they are signing up to keep nuclear waste for centuries.
“It’s a way to try to make something positive out of [nuclear waste] and make lemonade out of lemons,” Sen. Alan Armstrong (R-Okla.) said shortly after a meeting with DOE officials on Capitol Hill. “I think it’s a great idea, if done thoughtfully and with the local people in mind.”
No member of Congress from the five semifinalist states flatly ruled out eventually hosting additional nuclear waste when asked by POLITICO. Several Republicans released statements indicating they wanted their states to compete for the campuses.
“This is an incredible opportunity to strengthen American energy dominance, bolster our domestic nuclear supply chain, and create new high-paying jobs right here in Utah,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in a statement after the announcement.
But with questions still swirling over what long-term disposal might ultimately entail, other congressional Republicans are stopping short of backing a potential campus in their state.
“Obviously we’re always concerned about waste storage and that sort of thing,” said Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho). “I don’t want to commit to anything until I’ve seen exactly what their proposal is.”
A change in nuclear politics?
The enthusiasm surrounding the program could reflect the broader political revival of nuclear energy on Capitol Hill and among the public. A recent Pew Research Center poll found support for nuclear energy increased from 43 percent in 2020 to 59 percent in May 2025.
On Capitol Hill, nuclear legislation has become one of the few areas of consistent bipartisan cooperation, as demonstrated by passage of the ADVANCE Act in 2024. That law sought to streamline deployment of next-generation nuclear energy technologies, including small modular reactors and fusion energy.
Lake Barrett, a former DOE official in the George W. Bush administration, said the shift in public attitudes may also be changing perceptions of nuclear energy’s most politically toxic feature.
“The fear of nuclear — and its waste — is not as significant an issue for voters as it was 30 years ago,” Barrett said. “I also think it is wise to package the desirable facilities with the slightly less desirable facilities to draw interest.”
That strategy appears to be resonating. Many lawmakers have focused on the campuses’ potential to create jobs, expand the nuclear supply chain and support new advanced reactors.
“This project will provide a greater ability to power Utah homes and businesses with safe and reliable energy, as well as enhance our supply chain and workforce,” said Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah).
DOE has also emphasized reprocessing — recycling spent nuclear fuel into new reactor fuel or other usable materials — rather than long-term disposal. The technology is not currently deployed commercially in the U.S. but could reduce the volume of waste requiring permanent disposal. Critics say the promise remains largely theoretical.
“Reprocessing is not a solution to the waste problem. It’s just a management strategy,” said Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chair during the Obama administration.
Some environmental groups are also beginning to push back, arguing the economic pitch and focus on recycling could be obscuring the long-term waste challenge.
“Reprocessing does not eliminate radioactive waste,” said Carmen Valdez, senior policy associate at the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. “It changes its form while creating additional security, transportation and environmental risks. Rather than solving the nation’s waste problem, this proposal shifts more of that burden onto a handful of states, including Utah.”
Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, also voiced caution.
“I need to learn a lot more about it before I’m going to be supportive of the rest of the country dumping its nuclear waste on Louisiana,” Kennedy said.
But for now, however, many Republicans from the semifinalist states appear willing to take that political gamble.
“We didn’t become a great country by being selfish about everything in front of us and in our backyards,” Armstrong said. “This problem is not going away.”
Pavan Acharya contributed to this report.
