Last summer, officials from the Department of Energy convened at the Idaho National Laboratory to discuss the future of nuclear energy under the Trump administration. The meeting was led by 31-year-old lawyer Seth Cohen, a relatively recent arrival from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team with little background in nuclear law or policy. As the group debated licensing and safety, Cohen minimized health concerns, responding to staff worries about radiation exposure at test sites with, “They are testing in Utah. I don’t know, like 70 people live there,” adding to an atmosphere that many career experts found flippant and alarming.

ProPublica’s review of records from that meeting illustrates a broader, rapid shift in U.S. nuclear policy: a push to remake regulation so it accelerates reactor approvals and supports a new generation of small advanced reactors backed by Silicon Valley capital. Career regulators and scientists have been pushed aside as thousands of pages of regulations are rewritten quickly. New industry-friendly appointees, political operatives, and venture-backed startups are exerting influence over decisions historically handled by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), long regarded as a gold standard for safety oversight.

Trump’s administration has been particularly aggressive toward the NRC. In June, President Trump fired Commissioner Christopher Hanson after Hanson emphasized the importance of NRC independence — the first firing of an NRC commissioner. Cohen, later named chief counsel for nuclear policy at DOE, told staff to “assume the NRC is going to do whatever we tell the NRC to do,” according to records. The message — that the independent regulator should align with the White House’s rapid-build agenda — has reverberated through the agency.

The changes have prompted an exodus of experienced staff. ProPublica’s analysis of NRC and Office of Personnel Management data shows more than 400 departures from the agency since Trump took office, particularly among reactor and nuclear materials safety teams and veteran employees. Hiring has slowed, with far fewer new arrivals than in the prior year. Many longtime professionals say that institutional independence and safety culture are under strain; Allison Macfarlane, a former NRC chair, warned that “the safety culture is under threat.”

The political and financial push to loosen rules reflects a consensus among some conservatives, deregulation advocates, and venture capitalists — notably Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen — that the NRC has become an obstacle to innovation. Thiel and Andreessen have invested in nuclear startups and influenced personnel choices inside the administration. Trump signed executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear build-out, directing the NRC to shorten approval timelines and reduce its workforce, and instructing DOE to create pathways for “advanced” reactor testing. The stated goal: quadruple U.S. nuclear output and supply new power to AI data centers.

That agenda has included legislative and administrative moves predating the current administration. The 2024 ADVANCE Act, signed under President Biden, already altered the NRC’s mission language to discourage unnecessary limits on nuclear development. The Trump team has pushed further, sending political lawyers and operatives into the NRC and routing proposed rule changes through offices overseen by political figures such as Russell Vought. Critics say these interventions compromise the agency’s independence.

At DOE, changes have been dramatic. The department’s nuclear office lost about a third of its staff by early 2026, according to the Federation of American Scientists. The DOE has created “concierge” teams to shepherd selected advanced reactor projects through bureaucracy and quietly shared draft regulations with participating companies before making them public. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who sat on the board of advanced reactor company Oklo before joining DOE, has urged fast permitting and construction. DOE documents and presentations make an explicit “business case” for loosening radiation rules, suggesting shielding cost savings could reduce reactor costs and citing potential fivefold increases in allowable public radiation exposure — a change that would ease expensive shielding requirements and could apply nationwide if adopted by the NRC.

The push to lift long-standing radiation protections goes hand-in-hand with other deregulatory moves. DOE officials have discussed abandoning the ALARA principle — “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” — which historically guided efforts to minimize exposure well below legal limits. Internal documents and lab reports — one compiled using the AI assistant Claude — have been used to justify proposed changes, though some radiation experts say the science is contested and that raising dose limits could put the U.S. out of step with international norms.

The influence of venture-backed startups is visible in personnel and culture. Cohen and other DOGE operatives visited the NRC in suburban Maryland accompanied by investors and startup founders with little nuclear experience. At one visit, Cohen reportedly handed out hats from Valar Atomics, a startup with Trump-aligned Silicon Valley investors including Palmer Luckey and Shyam Sankar. NRC ethics officials warned that the gesture likely violated conflict rules; career staff bristled at the optics of regulators wearing company swag. Valar and similar firms have pursued legal strategies to curtail NRC authority — for example, suing to replace federal regulation with state-level oversight — and have pushed for settlements and compromises that career lawyers expected courts would reject.

Some career NRC officials resigned after briefing the new arrivals, dismayed that the proposals seemed to prioritize speed and compliance with the White House over adherence to established safety rules. Others described a fearful workplace where employees hesitate to raise issues that might displease political leadership. “It feels like being a lobster in a slowly boiling pot,” one official said; several compared the atmosphere to slow boiling.

Even those who support nuclear expansion worry that reckless or politically driven deregulation could backfire. Pro-nuclear groups have urged the administration to preserve the NRC’s independence to maintain public trust. Judi Greenwald of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance said faster approvals are needed but warned, “You have to make sure you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

The administration has also folded industry input into rulemaking in unprecedented ways. Prospective political appointees were vetted by Silicon Valley backers; investors and company leaders got early access to executive order drafts and opportunities to suggest edits. Startups were given direct routes to DOE and NRC conversations, and some companies enjoyed symbolic demonstrations of government support — including a military flight that transported a prototype reactor from Los Angeles to Utah, an airlift DOE memos called “critical” to national security interests. The flight drew skeptics who viewed it as a PR exercise; Valar’s reactor is not yet operational.

Advocates for faster nuclear development argue regulations were designed for large light-water reactors and are ill-suited to small modular and advanced designs, which may require different security perimeters or fewer onsite operators. New technologies — sensors, modeling, automation — could justify modernized standards. Proponents say streamlining licensing and permitting is essential to enable innovation and meet energy demands, including those driven by AI data centers.

But critics point to historical precedents for caution. Investigations into Fukushima and Chernobyl cited regulatory capture and cozy ties between industry and oversight as factors that compromised safety. Kathryn Huff, former assistant secretary for nuclear energy, warned that regulatory capture contributed to those global disasters. Many experts argue that a rigorous, independent regulator has kept the U.S. largely free of major nuclear incidents since Three Mile Island in 1979.

Within the NRC, internal rule drafts circulating in 2026 proposed significant cuts to inspections and emergency preparedness activities; one media report cited a proposed 56% reduction in emergency preparedness inspection time. NRC leadership changes, retirements, and the insertion of political operatives into senior teams have further unsettled staff. Some Democratic commissioners publicly warned they might be fired for resisting changes that compromise safety, and at least one recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing saw NRC lawyers withdraw for “limited resources,” a first in decades.

Cohen has framed his mission as removing governmental barriers for industry, telling audiences that failing to scale nuclear energy risks U.S. competitiveness in AI and even offering stark metaphors about geopolitical consequences. He has pushed to avoid costly trust funds for workplace accidents, urged a tolerance for unlikely but catastrophic “100-year events,” and compared startup risks to early SpaceX rockets blowing up.

DOE and White House spokespeople insist they remain committed to safety. The White House said Cohen is a DOE employee not reporting to senior aides, and DOE officials have defended new rules as aligning with “Gold Standard Science” while eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy. Still, career experts, independent scientists, and some industry supporters fear the rapid pace and political direction of change could erode safety culture, public trust, and long-term viability of nuclear power — risks with potentially high stakes should a serious incident occur.

Avi Asher-Schapiro, Pratheek Rebala, and Kirsten Berg contributed reporting for the original piece.

Last summer at the Idaho National Laboratory, a group of Department of Energy officials gathered to map the future of U.S. nuclear power under the new administration. The meeting was led by Seth Cohen, a 31‑year‑old lawyer who had little background in nuclear law and had come into government through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Records and interviews show Cohen repeatedly downplayed health and safety concerns as the group discussed licensing advanced reactor designs, at times treating radiation risks with flippancy that alarmed career staff.

The episode is part of a broader, rapid shift in how the federal government is managing nuclear regulation. The Trump administration has pushed to speed approvals, rewrite safety rules, and bring in political operatives and Silicon Valley‑connected investors to reshape the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy’s nuclear portfolio. Career experts have departed in large numbers, thousands of pages of regulations are being reworked quickly, and new reactor startups backed by venture capital are gaining unprecedented access to policymaking.

The NRC, long regarded as the international gold standard for independent nuclear oversight, has been a principal target. In a notable early move, President Trump fired NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson after Hanson publicly defended the agency’s independence — the first firing of an NRC commissioner. Career staff departures have been steep: ProPublica’s review of staffing data and agency accounts found hundreds of employees have left since the administration began, with particularly heavy losses among veteran reactor and materials safety experts. Hiring has not kept pace.

White House and DOE officials argue the changes are needed to modernize regulation, remove unnecessary delays, and accelerate construction of reactors intended to supply power to expanding AI data centers. Trump’s executive orders direct the NRC to reduce workforce burdens, speed licensing, and overhaul safety requirements; the DOE has been instructed to create pathways for “advanced” reactor companies to test designs. The administration’s stated goal is to dramatically expand U.S. nuclear capacity.

But critics say the pace and political direction risk undermining the safety culture that has kept the U.S. free of major nuclear incidents since 1979. Past disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl are often attributed in part to regulatory capture and weak oversight — lessons that many nuclear professionals say argue for caution, not haste. “The regulator is no longer an independent regulator — we do not know whose interests it is serving,” said Allison Macfarlane, former NRC chair. Hundreds of experienced staffers leaving or being edged out, she and others warn, degrade institutional memory and safety expertise.

Silicon Valley money and influence are central to the shift. Billionaires and venture capitalists such as Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen have invested in advanced nuclear startups and advised the administration. Andreessen helped recruit staffers after the 2024 election; Thiel vetted candidates for senior DOE nuclear posts. Startups and investors sought direct access at Mar‑a‑Lago and were given early drafts of executive orders and regulatory texts, according to documents and sources.

Several new reactor companies — many backed by tech money — now have fast lanes within DOE and early sight of regulatory changes. Valar Atomics, a startup backed by Silicon Valley angels including Palmer Luckey and Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar, became emblematic of the frictions: Cohen reportedly passed out Valar hats at an NRC meeting, prompting ethics warnings and raising alarm among career staff who see any appearance of coziness as corrosive to the watchdog role. Valar, and other firms, have argued that existing radiation limits and safety requirements make some designs uneconomic; internal DOE memos cite potential cost savings from reduced shielding as justification for altering dose rules.

Regulatory rollbacks being discussed — and in some cases drafted — include significant reductions in inspection time and changes to emergency preparedness and public exposure standards. Draft NRC rule changes circulated internally propose steep cuts to inspection hours for emergency preparedness. The DOE has considered raising the legal limit for public radiation exposure by several fold and has signaled it will abandon the longstanding ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which directed radiation exposure to be kept well below legal thresholds. DOE memos and presentations have framed dose‑limit changes as “business cases” that could reduce reactor costs by a few percentage points.

Those proposals alarm radiation health experts and many regulators. The scientific evidence on the health impacts of very low radiation doses remains contested; the United States has historically taken a cautious approach. Raising limits could place U.S. policy out of sync with international standards and erode public trust in nuclear power — a particular risk for startups that need community buy‑in to site and operate reactors.

Policy personnel shifts have been dramatic. DOGE‑aligned operatives with little nuclear experience have been placed in sensitive roles at the NRC and DOE. NRC staff have reported being briefed and overseen by political lawyers and young operatives who lack domain expertise. The DOE’s nuclear office has lost a significant share of staff; the NRC’s top attorney resigned and was replaced by an oil‑and‑gas lawyer who had worked on DOGE cuts. The NRC’s rulemaking process has also been routed through an office overseen by Russell Vought, a cost‑cutting overseer from the White House, a step critics say further threatens the agency’s independence.

Some long‑tenured NRC officials who supported nuclear expansion nonetheless felt compelled to speak out. Scott Morris, an NRC career operations official for more than three decades who supports deregulation in principle, called the political insertion into senior leadership “a dangerous proposition.” Others compared working at the agency to being a lobster in slowly boiling water: staffers fear retaliation if they raise concerns, and some offices have been so depleted they could not defend agency positions at adjudicatory hearings for the first time in decades.

The DOE has also created programs to allow experimental reactor designs to “go critical” more quickly, with concierge teams to shepherd companies through bureaucracy. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who had served on the board of an advanced reactor company before resigning upon confirmation, has publicly urged rapid permitting and construction. The DOE quietly revised some safety rules that will apply to participating companies and shared those revisions with the companies before making them public, according to reporting.

The department even used an AI assistant to help compile a lab report cited in internal documents advocating dose‑limit changes, drawing criticism from radiation scientists who said the work misinterpreted the literature. Meanwhile, DOE officials used a military plane to airlift a prototype reactor for Valar Atomics in a move some inside government characterized as PR; internal memos labeled the flight “critical” to national security.

Administrations and advocates favoring faster licensing argue that rules written for large light‑water reactors do not fit small modular and advanced designs, and that sensors, modeling and modern controls should justify regulatory updates. Proponents say streamlining licensing and site availability will close the “missing link” in nuclear innovation and unlock a new fleet of modular reactors. Some pro‑nuclear groups back faster timelines but warn that maintaining NRC independence is essential to preserve public confidence.

The changes have provoked lawsuits and internal battles. Three reactor companies sued the NRC seeking to replace federal oversight with state regulation; before the administration, lawyers expected the suit to be dismissed. New appointees pushed toward a compromise settlement that remains under negotiation while a career NRC lawyer handling the case left the agency.

Seth Cohen has articulated his mission bluntly: to remove government barriers to industry. He has argued against creating industry trust funds for workplace accidents, questioned preparing for rare “100‑year events,” and compared nuclear startup risk‑tolerance to early private rocket failures. His remarks reflect a “move fast and break things” Silicon Valley ethos that many nuclear professionals fear is incompatible with nuclear safety culture.

The administration and DOE say they remain committed to protecting workers and communities while modernizing regulation. But with hundreds of experienced regulators gone or sidelined, draft rules rolling out quickly, and deep ties between tech investors and nascent reactor companies, the future of U.S. nuclear oversight is in flux — and whether the changes will yield safe, broadly supported expansion or a weakened safety regime remains contested.

Last summer at the Idaho National Laboratory, a Department of Energy meeting on the future of U.S. nuclear energy was led by 31‑year‑old lawyer Seth Cohen — a recent entrant from the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency with little nuclear experience. Records and interviews show Cohen repeatedly downplayed radiation and safety concerns, at one point dismissing questions about downwind communities and joking about transcription. Later, Cohen became chief counsel for nuclear policy at DOE.

ProPublica’s review of internal records and interviews paints a picture of rapid, politically driven change: an aggressive push from the Trump administration to remake nuclear regulation to speed new reactor builds, particularly to supply the growing energy needs of AI data centers. That push has involved firing or sidelining career officials, inserting political operatives into rulemaking, and fast‑tracking rule rewrites — moves critics say risk undermining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s long‑standing independence and safety culture.

The NRC has been regarded internationally as a gold standard regulator. Major disasters such as Fukushima and Chernobyl are often attributed in part to regulatory capture and cozy industry‑regulator ties, a historical lesson cited by critics warning against the current direction. In June, President Trump fired NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson after Hanson defended agency independence — the first firing of an NRC commissioner. Since Trump returned to office, more than 400 people have left the NRC, with especially steep losses among teams handling reactor and materials safety and seasoned staffers with a decade or more of experience. Hiring has slowed; the first year of the Trump administration saw roughly 60 new hires compared with nearly 350 in the last year of the Biden administration.

The administration’s approach is influenced by Silicon Valley investors and venture capitalists who have financed advanced‑reactor startups. Billionaires like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, both investors in nuclear ventures and Trump backers, have pressed for faster approvals and deregulation. Andreessen helped staff the administration; Thiel personally vetted candidates for DOE roles. Startups and their investors have gained privileged access to draft executive orders and new DOE programs that create pathways for advanced reactor testing and “concierge” assistance through DOE bureaucracy.

Trump signed orders aimed at quadrupling nuclear output and accelerating approval timelines for reactors. The DOE was directed to create testing pathways for advanced reactor companies; the NRC was told to speed approvals and rewrite safety rules. The White House and DOE frame this as necessary urgency: more nuclear power to meet AI data‑center demand and to achieve “energy dominance.” Critics see a “move fast” Silicon Valley ethos being applied to one of the most safety‑critical infrastructures.

At the NRC and DOE, political operatives and inexperienced hires — including a mix of recent law graduates and people with non‑nuclear backgrounds — have been inserted into rulewriting and oversight roles. DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) operatives attended NRC meetings; Cohen and others have mingled with NRC staff. In one episode, Cohen handed out branded hats from Valar Atomics, a nuclear startup, prompting NRC ethics warnings and anger among career staff who view such gestures as incompatible with regulator neutrality.

Valar and other startups are often backed by prominent tech investors — Palmer Luckey and Shyam Sankar are among those linked to Valar. Some of these companies sued the NRC seeking to shift regulatory authority to states; the suit and its settlement negotiations coincided with personnel changes at the agency, and a career lawyer working on the case quietly left the NRC.

Regulatory rewrites underway include thousands of pages of new rules on safety, emergency preparedness and licensing procedures. Drafts reportedly propose steep cuts to inspection times for emergency preparedness and other rollback measures. Lawyers from the White House’s Executive Office of the President have been reported in rulemaking meetings — a move that raises questions about agency independence, even as the White House denies dispatching lawyers to work on rulemaking. The rule overhaul is being routed through an office overseen by Russell Vought, an explicit political choice unusual for an independent agency.

Inside the NRC, the steering committee overseeing changes includes Cohen, the NRC’s new top attorney David Taggart (previously involved in DOE budget cuts), and Mike King, a career official newly elevated to operations director. Several senior career officials have departed after being sidelined. Scott Morris, a 32‑year NRC veteran who supports nuclear expansion, warned that inserting political operatives into senior teams could dangerously influence decisions. Some staff say they fear speaking up, likening the atmosphere to “a lobster in a slowly boiling pot.”

The DOE has quietly rewritten safety rules that would apply to the advanced reactors being shepherded through its testing programs, sometimes sharing drafts with participating companies before making them public. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright — who previously served on the board of Oklo, one of the companies in DOE’s testing program — has publicly emphasized speed: “We are moving as quickly as we can to permit, build and enable the rapid construction of as much nuke capacity as possible.” Wright stepped down from Oklo’s board when confirmed.

A major technical and public‑health controversy centers on proposals to raise legal limits on public radiation exposure and to abandon the long‑standing ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which guides operations to minimize exposure below threshold levels. DOE internal memos argue that relaxing dose limits and reducing shielding requirements could cut reactor costs (cited savings of $1–2 million per reactor or ~5% of some project costs). The DOE has discussed a potential fivefold increase in allowable public radiation exposure and has circulated presentations that frame dose changes as a “business case.” Such moves could put U.S. standards out of step with international practice, experts warn.

The Idaho National Laboratory produced a report, with assistance from an AI assistant, cited in DOE documents supporting these changes. Radiation experts have criticized the science and interpretation of the literature in those documents. The DOE has reportedly sidelined its internal health experts and diminished outside expert input. Critics say that casting aside conservative radiation protection principles and rushing rule changes risks public health and undermines confidence in nuclear expansion.

Symbolic actions include a military airlift used to fly Valar’s untested reactor from Los Angeles to Utah — described by some observers as a PR exercise — and Cohen posting photos from the cargo bay. Cohen has argued publicly that regulators should not be barriers to industry and has compared the urgency to early, failure‑prone eras in SpaceX’s rocket development, suggesting tolerance for early mishaps. He also discouraged proposed industry trust funds for workplace accidents, saying startups shouldn’t be required to set aside hundreds of millions.

Alarmed voices include former NRC chair Allison Macfarlane, who warned the regulator “is no longer an independent regulator,” and Kathryn Huff, former DOE assistant secretary, who linked regulatory capture to past disasters. Some pro‑nuclear groups, while supportive of faster timelines, express unease: Judi Greenwald of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance said preserving NRC independence is essential to maintaining public trust and avoiding throwing “out the baby with the bathwater.”

The administration’s supporters say the NRC had been “frozen in time,” with rules built around large light‑water reactors that don’t fit smaller advanced designs. They argue sensors, modeling and modern controls warrant modernized rules and faster licensing to enable factory‑built small modular reactors. DOE and White House spokespeople maintain the changes prioritize safety while removing unnecessary bureaucracy.

As the rule changes advance, final approvals rest with the NRC’s five commissioners, three of whom are Republican appointees. Two Democratic commissioners have warned they could be fired if they oppose the administration’s agenda. Career lawyers withdrew from an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing citing limited resources — an unusual move that underscored internal strain.

The broader dynamic is one of Silicon Valley capital and political influence converging on an industry with high stakes for public safety. Proponents see a path to rapid zero‑carbon power and to powering AI infrastructure; critics see dismantled safeguards and the risk of regulatory capture reminiscent of the failures blamed for past international nuclear catastrophes. The outcome will shape not only how quickly new reactors are built, but whether the U.S. sustains the protective regulatory culture that has helped avoid serious nuclear incidents for decades.

Avi Asher‑Schapiro reported; Pratheek Rebala and Kirsten Berg contributed research.