The Reactor Pilot Program has its pros, but it needs to be paired with money and action from Congress and the presidency.
Last month, the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of ten reactor companies under its Reactor Pilot Program, which “establishes a new DOE pathway for advanced reactor demonstrations to fast-track commercial licensing.” The selected companies will work with the DOE to “construct, operate, and achieve criticality of at least three test reactors using the DOE authorization process by July 4, 2026,” with the expectation that partnership with the DOE will enable companies to raise more private sector funding.
At first glance, the program is a solid building block in the national project of reinvigorating the nuclear energy industry. Microreactors represent a piece in the larger puzzle of the nuclear energy ecosystem, and expediting their testing can help build out the nuclear energy supply chain and workforce. Both of these will have benefits across the industry.
Similarly, more reactor demonstrations will create a stronger demand signal for advanced nuclear fuels and could help the US nuclear fuel industry as well. The Reactor Pilot Program is a step in the right direction, and more is still needed from the private sector and the US government to ensure that the industry can realize its full potential.
The announcement follows the May 2025 executive orders signed by President Trump, and the Reactor Pilot Program falls under the EO “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,” which is intended to streamline and expedite the process of testing reactor designs at US national laboratories. Although the new pilot program does not set up a cost share (unlike the DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program), the selected companies will benefit greatly from expediting the testing of their designs using national laboratory capabilities.
Energy expert Dan Yurman recently criticized the program due to the DOE’s “short-term focus on micro reactors instead of energizing efforts to build large PWRs,” arguing that the “DOE needs to focus on whales, not minnows.” However, more initiatives will presumably follow from the DOE, especially since the May EO, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base,” called for DOE to have “ten new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030.”
Most importantly, programs that focus on a particular sector of the US nuclear energy sector can have positive implications across the broader industry. It is also possible that the selection of ten companies (and eleven projects) is too many to provide significant help to any particular project, and resources (whether the time and facilities from the national laboratories or private sector funding) should be concentrated in fewer projects.
Perhaps the most significant caveat is that programs like the Reactor Pilot Program will need staff and funding in order to implement and run effectively; the Trump administration and Congress should be aware that cutting federal budgets and encouraging federal retirements could severely undercut their ambitious nuclear energy agenda.
Ultimately, the Reactor Pilot Program is good news for the US nuclear energy industry, and it will be even better news if it is accompanied by similarly ambitious projects aimed at different types of nuclear reactor companies.
About the Author: Jennifer T. Gordon
Jennifer T. Gordon is director of the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center’s Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative. Jennifer was previously a senior energy analyst at the National Journal’s Network Science Initiative.
Image: Shutterstock/totojang1977
