The Trump administration is once again blurring the dangerous line between civilian energy policy and the U.S. nuclear weapons program. According to new reporting, the Department of Energy (DOE) is considering diverting plutonium from the nation\u2019s nuclear weapons stockpile to fuel a new wave of nuclear reactors\u2014reactors being pitched as a solution to the electricity demands of AI data centers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the heart of this plan is not surplus material alone, but plutonium pits<\/a><\/em>\u2014the highly radioactive cores of nuclear warheads. Internal DOE memos reveal that more than a fifth of the plutonium envisioned for this program would come directly from pits the Pentagon relies on to sustain its nuclear deterrent. This comes as DOE already struggles to meet Congress\u2019s demands to build more pits for the next generation of U.S. missiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The push is being sold as a way to power the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence. Tech giants, desperate for \u201ccarbon-free\u201d electricity, have aligned themselves with an administration eager to hand over public assets to private startups like Oklo<\/a>. But this is not clean energy. Converting weapons plutonium for civilian use introduces massive security, safety, and economic risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plutonium is far more radioactive than uranium and represents one of the greatest proliferation dangers on Earth. To dismantle pits and reprocess this material for reactors would take years, cost billions, and create new transport and storage vulnerabilities. Previous attempts\u2014such as DOE\u2019s failed plutonium-to-fuel project at Savannah River\u2014collapsed under spiraling costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democratic leaders in Congress, including Sen. Ed Markey<\/a> and Reps. Don Beyer<\/a> and John Garamendi<\/a>, have condemned the proposal. In a September 10 letter, they warned that it \u201cgoes against long-standing, bipartisan U.S. nuclear security policy,\u201d raises weapons proliferation concerns, and \u201cmay adversely affect the nation\u2019s defense posture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Independent experts agree. Hans Kristensen<\/a> of the Federation of American Scientists<\/a> noted the DOE plan appears to be advancing without meaningful coordination with the Defense Department. \u201cThis is mainly a Department of Energy plan happening in collusion with the nuclear power industry,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump administration frames this as a trade-off: weaken our nuclear arsenal to expand nuclear power. But in reality, it\u2019s a false choice. We do not need to hollow out the weapons stockpile in order to feed plutonium into untested commercial reactors. Nor should communities bear the risks of plutonium transport and reprocessing when safe, renewable energy options already exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At its core, this proposal reveals a dangerous pattern: using national security assets to subsidize private industry. While DOE scrambles to make 80 pits per year to modernize warheads by 2030, the administration wants to simultaneously disassemble pits to meet tech sector electricity demand. This contradiction exposes the unseriousness of the plan\u2014and the recklessness of tying nuclear weapons policy to Silicon Valley\u2019s hunger for power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Peace Economy Project believes this is exactly the wrong path. Instead of funneling taxpayer resources into nuclear brinksmanship and plutonium-powered reactors, we should be:<\/p>\n\n\n\nA New Nuclear Risk for AI\u2019s Electricity Hunger<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Watchdogs and Lawmakers Sound the Alarm<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A False Choice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Peace Economy Alternative<\/h3>\n\n\n\n