The 2026 midterms delivered a clear warning to anyone who thinks communities will accept major energy projects simply because Washington or Wall Street says they are strategic. Voters are worried about costs, local control and who benefits when power-hungry infrastructure arrives. Democrats next year will take control of Congress, and many local communities voted to restrict data-center development. The lesson is not that America should stop building. It is that the public wants a stronger voice in what gets built, how it is paid for and what it gives back.
COMMENTARY
That lesson should shape the next chapter of nuclear policy. Spent nuclear fuel has been treated as a political problem to be postponed for decades. Yucca Mountain in Nevada remains the site named in federal law, but it has not received new appropriations since 2010 and its licensing process is suspended. The country still lacks a durable, broadly accepted plan for managing used fuel. We should not mistake that impasse for a solution.
The U.S. needs a serious alternative: one that works with willing states, protects public health, keeps independent oversight intact and makes practical use of material that still contains energy and strategic value. Nuclear fuel recycling can be part of that answer. It can recover useful materials and reduce the volume of waste requiring final disposal. It cannot make every residual material disappear, and it does not eliminate the need for a credible long-term disposal pathway. Those limits should be stated openly. They are reasons to do the work carefully, not reasons to leave the problem untouched.
This is also a place where Democrats can lead. Representative Mike Levin (D-California) has welcomed the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus process and urged Congress to authorize it with durable funding, clear benchmarks and oversight. Representative Susie Lee (D-Nevada) has introduced legislation to end Yucca Mountain’s status as the nation’s repository. Their positions reflect a practical point: a state that is willing to participate in a national solution deserves a serious partnership, and the federal government must earn that consent through transparency and accountability.
That kind of approach should not be owned by either party. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus is bipartisan, and the states exploring Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses include Tennessee, Utah, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma. Their interest creates an opening to replace the one-site deadlock with a voluntary, state-led process. The next Congress should build on that opening, while requiring independent safety review, public engagement, transparent costs and clear responsibility for every material stream.
There is a national-security reason to act as well. Russia does not sell reactors in isolation. Its export model can bundle construction, financing, fuel, technical services and used-fuel arrangements into a long-term relationship. That package gives Moscow influence as well as revenue. Russia remains a major player in the nuclear fuel cycle: the Congressional Research Service estimated that it held about 43% of global uranium-enrichment capacity in 2025. A prohibition on Russian uranium imports matters, but a ban without credible alternatives leaves utilities and customers with fewer choices.
The U.S. and its allies should offer a complete alternative. American reactor companies and fuel suppliers, working with recyclers, could give partner countries a credible way to manage fuel after it leaves the reactor. A takeback and recycling service could reduce the burden on a host country, recover valuable material and compete with the full-service package Russia offers. The terms would have to be real: the fuel types accepted, transport and safeguards, financing, ownership, residual-waste disposition and long-term liability all need to be settled before anyone promises a solution.
American companies are developing technologies to recover useful material from used nuclear fuel and reduce the volume of waste requiring final disposal. States including Tennessee, Utah, Mississippi, and Louisiana are exploring opportunities to host parts of a broader nuclear fuel cycle. These technologies still need to be demonstrated and qualified, and a U.S. takeback service must meet rigorous safety, security and regulatory requirements. If the United States can do that in partnership with willing states, it can turn a weakness in its nuclear export offering into a competitive strength.
The benefits would reach beyond the nuclear industry. A credible U.S. takeback and recycling option could give allies an alternative to Russian fuel-cycle services, strengthen domestic capabilities and show that innovation can go hand in hand with public accountability. It could also help address the burden of stranded spent fuel and the costs taxpayers have borne because the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility to manage it.
A sound democratic policy should be willing to build, but it should insist that the public is protected and the benefits are shared. The election gave Democrats a chance to prove that principle applies to nuclear energy too. They can challenge the administration where it weakens oversight and still work with states, industry and Republicans to make a responsible fuel-recycling and waste-management system real. The country does not need another fight over slogans. It needs an alternative that communities can trust and that can compete with Russia on the merits.
—Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz is a Long Island, New York, entrepreneur and investor who leads Curio and Synergos Fund. He manages the family’s political investment portfolio, advises elected officials on international policy, and serves on nonprofit boards. Edward (Ed) McGinnis is Curio’s president and CEO and a senior nuclear energy executive with more than 30 years of government and industry experience. He served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Dept. of Energy, led international nuclear cooperation, directed the White House President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and chaired initiatives advancing nuclear energy, security, and nonproliferation. McGinnis was a speaker at POWER’s recent Experience POWER event in Washington, D.C.
