You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The president says he want to bring back nuclear — but he’s preparing to eviscerate an office crucial to making that happen.

In the past few days, I’ve started to wonder whether much of the Trump administration’s energy agenda is dead, and Trump officials just don’t realize it yet.
Trump dreamed of a new U.S. mining bonanza. But his tariffs are slowing economic activity and raising equipment costs, silencing that boom.
Trump called for the American oil industry to “drill, baby, drill.” But his trade agenda — plus his demand that OPEC increase its oil production — is smothering the Texas oil patch. The president’s trade war on China is also backfiring on America’s oil and gas producers, who export huge amounts of plastic feedstocks to that country.
Now Trump’s plan to revive nuclear energy is in peril, too — and the culprit, again, is the president’s own policies.
The Trump administration is planning to hollow out a Department of Energy office that has been central to financing almost every new U.S. nuclear project this century. That could kill the federal government’s ability to act as a financial backstop for new nuclear projects, which has been critical to the success of every recent American nuclear project.
It’s not clear that Trump officials realize what they’re doing yet — or that they care. (Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has been out of the country for much of the relevant period.) And while a coalition of centrist, conservative, and pro-nuclear groups is sounding the alarm, I’m not sure Trump officials are going to realize what they’re doing with enough time to stop it.
For decades now, reviving nuclear energy has been a big aim of Republican energy policy. Republican lawmakers passed nuclear-friendly bills in Congress, and Republican presidents tried to advance pro-nuclear policies.
Nuclear was central to the Trump 2024 campaign, too. Many Trump-aligned figures — including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance — suggested that the United States should significantly expand its nuclear fleet. (Vance mentioned nuclear during his appearance on Joe Rogan’s influential podcast and in the vice presidential debate.)
Then, on his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to loosen rules holding back nuclear energy. The Department of Energy, in turn, has lifted up the revival of nuclear energy as one of its goals for Trump’s second term.
“America’s nuclear energy renaissance starts now,” Wright declared in late March, when he announced new funding for small modular reactors.
Bringing back nuclear power is the explicit goal. But when it comes to energy policy, announcing an aim is not the same as getting it done. Just ask the Biden administration, which struggled to build EV chargers despite $7.5 billion in funding.
It will take a lot of work to execute a project as big and complex as building new nuclear reactors across the United States, and simply wanting to do it will not make it happen.
That’s what the Trump administration may not understand.
The United States has started only four new nuclear projects this century. All but one of those efforts have received — or are now in the process of applying for — a federal loan guarantee by the Loan Programs Office, the Energy Department’s in-house bank.
The Loan Programs Office, or LPO, provides long-term financing to major American clean energy and industrial projects. The LPO is a small office — just a few hundred people — but it was a vital tool of the Biden administration’s clean-energy industrial strategy. The first Trump administration also used it to boost nuclear energy. (It’s helped Trump allies, too: Back in 2010, it made an early loan to build Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California.)
The LPO has been the key guarantor for every new U.S. nuclear project this century, save one:
The only new nuclear project this century the LPO did not support is the new reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee, which opened in 2016. But that project had the federal government’s backing through a different avenue: The facility is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned power utility.
Despite that track record, commissars at the Department of Government Efficiency are now trying to gut LPO. The Musk-led efficiency team is seeking to slash more than half of the office’s staff, Heatmap News reported last week.
Seemingly seeking to ease those cuts, Energy Department officials have sought to winnow down the office’s headcount on their own. Energy Department officials have encouraged as many LPO employees as possible to accept an early resignation program under which federal employees can resign this month and get paid through September.
About half of Loan Programs Office employees have asked to resign from their positions, according to one person who wasn’t authorized to speak about the matter publicly. The Department of Energy told Heatmap News last week that it could reject some employees’ early resignation requests.
On Monday, a coalition of centrist, conservative, and pro-nuclear groups wrote a letter to Energy Secretary Wright urging him to “ensure LPO remains fully equipped to carry out its mission.”
The letter says that the LPO could lose so much of its staff — many of whom have special technical or scientific training — that it can no longer support development of new nuclear reactors, fossil power plants, or mineral projects.
“The office’s ability to underwrite and monitor large-scale energy projects depends on specialized technical staff and institutional capacity. Without them, the federal government risks slowing or stalling the diverse mix of energy projects that serve national priorities,” the letter says.
The letter’s signatories include the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s main trade group. Other signatories include American Compass, a Trump-aligned industrial policy group; Oklo, a nuclear energy company; and the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative environmental group.
The letter is the strongest warning yet that the Trump administration could be blowing its nuclear agenda. In doing so, the administration will lose a rare window of opportunity to make progress on nuclear energy.
Americans are looking more favorably on nuclear energy. Earlier this month, a new Gallup poll found that the U.S. public’s support for nuclear energy has hit 61% — just one percentage point short of its all-time high.That has come as Democratic politicians — especially in swing states — have become more supportive of nuclear energy. As I wrote last year, Democratic candidates at the Senate and presidential level proposed pro-nuclear policies in the last election that until recently would have been unthinkable. At the same time, Republicans have maintained their support of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy occupies a curious position in American politics. Think about it for a second. The country’s 54 commercially operating nuclear power plants are its largest source of zero-carbon electricity, generating more power than all of America’s wind and solar farms, combined. Second, nuclear power requires a large workforce of college-educated professionals, and those workers are unionized at much higher rates than the private workforce. Finally, nuclear power has never succeeded anywhere — not in the United States, not in France or Japan, and not in Russia or China — without huge amounts of public subsidy.
We are talking about a type of energy that is climate-friendly, that helps build a college-educated and unionized workforce, and that basically always requires government support. Yet nuclear energy has historically been beloved by Republicans and hated by Democrats.
I’m not convinced that will be the case for long — one of the two major parties might turn on nuclear energy in the next few years, driven either by political polarization or by the exigencies of events. (The American public’s support of nuclear power reached its all-time high in 2010, on the eve of the Fukushima disaster.)
Now might be the best window to build nuclear energy in this generation. Democrats in Congress — and the Trump administration — both say they want to do it. But the Trump administration is blowing it.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Beijing’s coal dip, Iran’s environmental ‘catastrophe,’ and Thanksgiving carbon footprint
Current conditions: Winds of up to 30 miles per hour will threaten the balloons at Macy’s iconic Thanksgiving Day parade in New York • Lake-effect snow could cause whiteouts across the Great Lake region • Temperatures are set to soar to nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia.
China has formed a fusion energy alliance with more than 10 countries to promote open science and encourage collaboration among international researchers to hasten the commercialization of electricity generated from what is effectively an artificial sun. At a launch event on Monday, Beijing unveiled the so-called Hefei Fusion Declaration, whose signatories include France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. “We are about to enter a new stage of burning plasma, which is critical for future fusion engineering,” Song Yuntao, vice president of the Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, said in a government press release.
The first fusion reaction to produce more energy than it took to spark occurred at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in December 2022. Since then, billions of dollars have flowed into fusion energy research and a number of prominent companies have proposed building power plants harnessing the technology. As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham put it, it’s “finally, possibly, almost time for fusion.” But the U.S. risks losing its edge, according to a new report by the Congress-backed Commission on the Scaling of Fusion Energy. “While the United States has long been at the forefront of fusion research, the international competition is intensifying,” the report published last month concluded. “China, in particular, is rapidly advancing its fusion energy capabilities through massive state investments and aggressive technological development, narrowing the window for American leadership.”

China’s emissions remained flat for another quarter in a row, continuing a downward trend that started last year, as I wrote here earlier this month. Backing up that data is new research from Greenpeace East Asia, which found that China approved just under 42 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity nationwide in the first nine months of 2025. That may sound like a lot, but if the current pace continues, 2025 is on track to be the second-lowest year for approvals since the COVID-19 shock in 2021. It would also be the second consecutive year of decline. “China’s power-sector emissions peak is within reach as early as 2025. Yet maintaining momentum to curb coal approvals remains critical,” Gao Yuhe, Greenpeace East Asia’s Beijing-based project manager, said in a statement. “Clear policy signals to cap coal and boost renewables are essential to accelerate both the power sector and societal emissions peaks.”
In the U.S., meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion late Monday evening asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to eliminate a Biden-era rule tightening limits on soot. The regulation, E&E News reported, was “predicted to save thousands of lives by tightening the exposure limit to a pollutant tied to a higher risk of strokes, lung cancer and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Since 1980, the Department of the Interior has run National Environmental Policy analyses on every five-year offshore drilling plan. But, as E&E News reported Tuesday, the agency’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management called that step “discretionary” in its latest proposal. To justify the change, the Trump administration cited two past rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that rejected challenges to NEPA assessments of five-year plans.
It’s a striking dichotomy with how the administration has dealt with offshore wind, most easily communicated via the meme of Shaquille O’Neal sleeping in one frame and awake with eyes ablaze in the next. Environmental damage from offshore oil and gas drilling? “I sleep,” as the meme goes. Environmental damage from offshore wind turbines? Now that, as I have written in this newsletter, has the Trump administration’s attention.
Iran “no longer has a choice” but to move its capital city as ecological strain on Tehran’s water and land make the metropolis impossible to sustain. In remarks carried on state media Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the government had “no option” but to consider an alternative city for the capital. “When we said we must move the capital, we did not even have enough budget,” he said, according to the London-based news service Iran International, which broadcasts in English and Farsi. “If we had, maybe it would have been done. The reality is that we no longer have a choice; it is an obligation.” As the capital sinks by near one foot per year and water supplies shrink, Tehran faces “catastrophe” and “a dark future,” he said. “Protecting the environment is not a joke. Ignoring it means signing our own destruction.”
Tehran wouldn’t be the only major city on the move. Indonesia is designing a new capital in Borneo called Nusantara to replace Jakarta, which is also slowly sinking.
Redwood Materials, the battery recycling startup led by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, has cut dozens of workers as the company scales back some of its projects to focus on tapping into demand for grid-scale batteries, Bloomberg reported Tuesday. The layoffs took place this month and were spread across the company, amounting to up to 6% of the total workforce. Redwood is now focusing on repurposing old batteries for the grid and extracting critical minerals from scrapped power packs.
Here’s a statistic for the vegetarians to whip out on Thanksgiving: A 16-pound turkey has a carbon footprint as big as the gravy, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, rolled biscuits, and apple pie combined, research from Carnegie Mellon University found. Before you go off starting a fight with your truck-driving, meat-loving uncle, the scientists noted that, “compared to all the environmental lifestyle decisions that an American family could make, these are very, very small potatoes.” I wish you all a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving holiday.
Rob preps for Giving Tuesday with Giving Green’s Dan Stein.
It’s been a tumultuous year for climate politics — and for climate nonprofits. The longtime activist group 350.org suspended its operations in the U.S. (at least temporarily), and Bill Gates, the world’s No. 1 climate funder, declared that the decarbonization movement should make a “strategic pivot” to poverty reduction. How should someone who wants to help the global climate navigate this moment?
Our guest has recommendations. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Dan Stein, the founder and executive director of Giving Green. Giving Green is a nonprofit that researches the most high-impact climate groups and helps people and companies donate to them. Stein talked about the top five climate groups Giving Green recommends this year, effective altruism and the future of climate philanthropy, and whether Bill Gates is right that climate activism has focused too much on emissions targets.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Dan Stein: You can think of this set of solutions that’s very easily measurable, and to a first order approximation call that the carbon offset market. And so if you’re very obsessed about measurements and accountability, you’re playing in the offset market — which is okay, but I just think people can do better, right? Like, we need to change systems. We need to change laws. And you can’t do that with a carbon offset. So we sometimes advise companies, as well, and that’s what I tell them. I’m like, if you put yourself in this box of having to measure the amount of tons that you are reducing to solve your net zero goal, well then you’re extremely restrained in terms of the upside impact you can have.
Robinson Meyer: It seems like you’ve followed an arc that is not unrecognizable from other parts of life. Like, I think of what’s happened with effective altruism, which is kind of where GiveWell initially came out of — this idea that everyone could be saving more lives if they were way more thoughtful and exact and precise, and scrutinized their methods much better in picking which groups to give to. And that obviously has had some big successes, among them GiveWell, which is quite impressive, I think, in some ways, and has saved a lot of lives and changed how people think about development. But ultimately you do run into politics, at the end of it.
I even think in economics more broadly, there’s incredible attention given to small policy changes that can produce more or less growth and more or less equality or inequality. But then when you talk about these big picture questions like why do certain countries become rich, or why does development happen in some places and not others? Once you move past the basic geographic constraints, then as far as I can tell, the current economic answer is like, well, some places had histories that developed good institutions and some places didn’t. And if you have good institutions, you have economic growth.
And it feels like we’re hitting the institution question of climate tech, or of decarbonization. Like, yeah, your dollars could go a little farther on some sorts of carbon offsets than others. But if you really care about decarbonization, you’re actually back at this big set of very mushy questions at the intersection of society and technology and policy and politics.
Stein: Definitely. And I mean, not to get us too derailed — you know, I’m an economist, Rob. But anyway —
Meyer: That’s why I’ve intentionally driven this car into a ditch.
Stein: Development economics has also gone through waves of this. If you think of the 70s and 80s, like, early versions of the World Bank were all about institutions and getting the rules of the game, right? And then free markets will solve everything. And then you kind of get a reaction to that in the 90s and 2000s of more microdevelopment.
And now I actually think maybe the pendulum is swinging the other way, going more towards growth. Now you even see it for someone like GiveWell. They’re now making a ton of grants not just to these super measurable direct intervention orgs, but to more meta orgs that are trying to increase the total amount of aid or the quality of aid or health systems or whatever. It’s really hard to avoid these questions of policy and technology and markets if you’re trying to solve big problems.
Mentioned:
Giving Green’s top climate nonprofits for 2025:
The Giving Green regranting fund
Bill Gates’ memo on “three tough truths about climate”
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Hydrostor is building the future of energy with Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage. Delivering clean, reliable power with 500-megawatt facilities sited on 100 acres, Hydrostor’s energy storage projects are transforming the grid and creating thousands of American jobs. Learn more at hydrostor.ca.
Uplight is a clean energy technology company that helps energy providers unlock grid capacity by activating energy customers and their connected devices to generate, shift, and save energy. The Uplight Demand Stack — which integrates energy efficiency, electrification, rates, and flexibility programs — improves grid resilience, reduces costs, and accelerates decarbonization for energy providers and their customers. Learn more at uplight.com/heatmap.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Congress is motivated to pass a bipartisan deal, but Democrats are demanding limits on executive power.
A big bipartisan permitting reform deal may be in the offing in Washington. But getting it done will require taking away one of Donald Trump’s favorite toys: The power to mess with solar and wind permits.
Last week the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the SPEED Act, a bill introduced by Republican committee chair Bruce Westerman, that would put the full weight of Congress behind the federal permitting process. There’s a lot in this bill for energy developers of all stripes to like — and a lot for environmental activists to loathe, including a 150-day statute of limitations on litigation, language enforcing shorter deadlines for reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (also known as NEPA), and a requirement that final approvals be released within 30 days of said review’s completion.
But this bill will mean nothing for the renewables industry if the Trump administration continues to dawdle on the kinds of routine governmental actions necessary to move any infrastructure project forward.
Since the start of Trump’s latest turn in office, officials have woven a paralytic web of bureaucratic hold-ups that make it next to impossible for a solar or wind energy project to get federal permits for construction activities. Meanwhile the SPEED Act, like NEPA, is essentially a process statute at this point — it deals with the boundaries within which environmental reviews are conducted. Without requiring the government to process any project regardless of whether it’s a renewable energy project or a new coal plant, Trump officials could easily produce endless delays and remain inside the letter of the law.
This is why Representative Jared Golden, a retiring moderate Democrat from Maine, pushed to add language to the SPEED Act that blocks any president from rescinding a permit after its approval. In theory, this would insulate offshore wind projects from losing even more permits (see: SouthCoast Wind, Atlantic Shores).
The bill — including the restriction on executive power — passed the House Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan 25 to 18 vote, though only two Democrats voted in favor.
For lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, energy bill inflation and data center drama have created serious momentum for getting bipartisan permitting legislation done ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The SPEED Act would more easily serve that need with stronger language addressing executive permitting powers, according to numerous interviews with Democratic lawmakers, D.C. policy wonks, and energy lobbyists.
“Any deal hinges on the Trump administration providing assurances they’re not going to kill every single clean energy project in existence,” Representative Mike Levin told me on Tuesday.
Levin, a California Democrat who is involved in permitting talks, said that an ideal fix for Democrats would be a proposal he co-authored with Democratic Representative Sean Casten that would require “parity” in the permitting process between fossil and non-fossil projects of all kinds. This language would explicitly require the Interior Secretary to ensure that project applications, authorizations, and approvals needed for wind, solar, battery storage, and transmission projects are “not subject to more restrictive or burdensome procedural requirements than those applied to oil, gas or coal projects.” It would also mandate that the department rescind any existing policies that violate this “parity” requirement.
“We’re going to need language in any bill that would provide certainty that all these projects permitted would be allowed to proceed, that permits will be honored, that in the future more permits will be granted. And I do not trust this administration to honor that without concrete language in the bill,” Levin told me.
Levin’s colleagues in the House echoed those sentiments. House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman told me that he’s hearing from representatives of the clean power sector who are “actually aligned” with environmentalists that “all of this is completely academic if you don’t release the hostage.” Representative Paul Tonko, ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee, told me in a statement that “for any permitting reform negotiations to move forward, the least we need are guarantees that whatever comes of an agreement will have the force of law and will be followed by this Administration.”
Public reactions to the SPEED Act from the renewable industry have ranged from warily cheerful to notably silent, in a way that has discernible political undertones. American Clean Power, a major energy sector trade association, and the American Council on Renewable Energy, otherwise known as ACORE, have carefully applauded the bill’s advancement while also emphasizing the need for bipartisan compromise. The Solar Energy Industries Association has yet to endorse the bill, and Rachel Skaar, a spokesperson for the group, told me it is “currently reviewing the language that passed out of committee.”
These complaints won’t mean much in the full House — Republicans can pass this bill without any votes from the opposing party. But this degree of party-wide consternation almost always translates to a filibuster in the Senate. It’s hard to imagine Senators Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrats on the two main Senate committees overseeing permits, trying to roll this solid bloc of colleagues. And while enough Senate Democrats broke with the party leadership to break the filibuster and reopen the government earlier this month, two of those were Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, where Big Solar wields a lot of sway.
“Its going to be a big factor in these talks,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide familiar with the bill, referring to the bureaucratic holdups facing renewables permits. The aide, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, said that lawmakers are racking their brains to find the “perfect language” to keep Trump in check. “Everything now has to be explicitly and clearly defined by Congress because there’s a track record of the federal government using any daylight where they can navigate the system to their advantage,” the aide told me.
Based on all my conversations, the House will likely vote to pass the SPEED Act, along with probably a slate of other permitting bills, maybe as soon as December. This will probably kickstart momentum in the Senate to produce something more bipartisan, which would in turn produce more pressure to address Trump’s permitting freeze head on.
There will be challenges with crafting language that makes all sides happy without creating unforeseen policy issues around executive powers in the future. “This issue of project certainty, as this subset of permitting talks has been called, is really tricky,” said Xan Fishman of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “How you actualize that into law is tough.” But if the Schoolhouse Rock of it all can be overcome, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune would be able to present a ready-made deal to the president.
Whether Trump would actually sign such a deal, however, is another ball of wax.
“The $64,000 question is, as this becomes even more real, will the White House start to intervene?” asked Josh Freed, senior vice president at Third Way’s climate and energy program.
There’s definitely outside momentum toward dealing with Trump’s permitting freeze under the valence of tech neutrality — whatever is good for the renewables goose would be good for the energy sector gander, so to speak. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a recent interview with Politico that addressing this freeze would help stop a future Democratic president from using the same trick on pipelines and drill sites. And Congressional Republicans appear to be negotiating in good faith with Democrats on the SPEED Act.
One D.C. energy lobbyist involved in the talks, however, confessed to me that the appearance of movement is “a lot of kabuki” unless Congress addresses the underlying issues around renewables permitting.
“It’s going to have to have teeth,” said the lobbyist, who requested anonymity because they did not have clearance to speak publicly. “The administration’s going to do whatever it wants.” And even with the language on executive power, the bill can only protect processes that fall under the federal government’s purview — that is, it won’t do anything with the litany of municipal and county restrictions that more frequently undermine renewable energy development.
When asked whether the White House was providing input on the SPEED Act, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Republicans told me that staff had “received technical assistance” from “relevant agencies.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment.