Weapons-grade recycling: US plutonium-to-fuel plan sparks nuclear security debate

The Trump administration is moving ahead with an ambitious and controversial plan to transfer Cold War-era plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads to private companies for conversion into nuclear reactor fuel, a shift that could reshape both the U.S. nuclear industry and long-standing nonproliferation policy, according to The New York Times.

The Energy Department announced on June 2 that five companies had been selected for “advanced negotiations” to potentially receive surplus plutonium under its Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program, established last year. Among them is Oklo, a California-based nuclear firm partnering with European reactor developer Newcleo, alongside Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies and Flibe Energy.

If finalised, the initiative would mark the first time weapons-grade plutonium has been made available to private industry. The U.S. holds more than 50 tons of surplus plutonium, originally produced for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Until recently, the government had planned to dilute and permanently dispose of much of this material.

Instead, the administration is now exploring whether it can be repurposed as reactor fuel—an approach that supporters argue could help resolve a looming bottleneck in nuclear expansion.

“A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, chief executive of Oklo, which is developing a reactor designed to run on plutonium. “This will help us get more nuclear power online faster.”

The Energy Department said the programme is intended to “help companies unlock the next level of private funding to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel the nation’s nuclear renaissance,” according to Michael Goff, principal deputy assistant secretary of nuclear energy.

Investor enthusiasm has already followed: Oklo’s stock rose more than 4 per cent after the announcement.

However, the proposal has triggered concern among nuclear security and nonproliferation experts, who warn that plutonium’s dual-use nature makes it inherently risky. Plutonium-239, used in nuclear weapons, is highly toxic and has a half-life of 24,000 years.

“Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” said Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

Critics in Congress have also raised alarms.

“It raises serious weapons proliferation concerns, makes little economic sense, and may adversely affect the nation’s defense posture,” Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Representatives Don Beyer of Virginia and John Garamendi of California wrote in a September letter.

The debate reflects a broader policy reversal. In 2018, the Trump administration canceled a multibillion-dollar plutonium fuel project in South Carolina after costs ballooned past $50 billion, instead proposing burial of diluted material in New Mexico at an estimated cost of $20 billion. That plan has now been reconsidered.

Supporters of the new approach argue that private-sector involvement could succeed where government programs failed.

“The last time this was tried, it was not run as a private company, and there were basically no clients for the fuel,” said Stefano Buono, chief executive of Newcleo. “We think we can do this at a very competitive cost.”

Administration officials say the shift aligns with a broader push to expand nuclear energy capacity fourfold by 2050, while reducing reliance on imported enriched uranium, including supplies from Russia.

Still, technical and security challenges remain significant. Working with plutonium requires extreme safeguards, and some of the material still resides in partially dismantled warheads requiring further processing before transfer.

The plan has also reopened long-standing policy disputes over nuclear reprocessing. While proponents argue it could unlock a sustainable fuel cycle, critics warn it risks undermining decades of nonproliferation norms.

“Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced in civilian nuclear energy programs,” said Ernest Moniz, former U.S. energy secretary. “Trying to revive the efforts would introduce long-recognized security risks and have the unintended consequence of impeding nuclear energy expansion just as momentum builds for such an outcome.”

By Sabina Mammadli