SEN RUBEN GALLEGO: Nuclear is the future – so why are Republicans blocking it?

Fox News

11-06-2025

When I visited St. Johns, Arizona – population 3,417 – last month, I wasn't just stopping in a quiet town on the edge of Apache County. I was visiting a community that could help unleash the next era of American energy. With the right investment, St. Johns could be home to one of the nation's first small modular reactors, also known as SMRs, which are the next generation nuclear technology designed for safety, flexibility, and cost efficiency.
But today, as our need for energy security grows, Congress is moving in the opposite direction by undermining bipartisan progress on nuclear power when we need it most.
Even President Donald Trump's administration has endorsed a nuclear "renaissance." So why are Republicans in Congress advancing legislation that would slash support for the very technologies he is championing?
The Case for SMRs
Small modular reactors represent a significant leap in nuclear innovation. Unlike traditional large plants, SMRs are factory-produced, shipped in pieces, and assembled on site. This modular approach cuts construction time and costs, while making nuclear power viable in more locations—including former coal-fired generating stations like in St. Johns.
SMRs are designed with robust safety features. They're built underground, reducing the risk of external threats, and require less frequent refueling, minimizing the handling and transport of nuclear materials. They can also work in tandem with renewable sources to provide stable backup when solar and wind aren't available.
These are just some of the benefits of SMRs recognized by the Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Good-Paying, Union Jobs
Investing in nuclear isn't just about boosting our energy supply, it's about creating good-paying, permanent jobs. One study at the Coronado Generating Station in St. Johns found that replacing coal plants with SMRs could preserve 77% of current jobs with no additional licensing required, while creating more than 650 new, permanent jobs.
More importantly, these are union jobs—98% of existing nuclear jobs are unionized. That means secure, high-paying careers that support working families with first-class health insurance and full pensions in communities often left behind during the energy transition.
This kind of long-term economic benefit is exactly what the Apache County leaders I talked with are excited about.
This impact could scale. Another study has found that a single 100-megawatt SMR can generate up to 7,000 jobs and over $1 billion in economic activity. For former coal towns across the country, SMRs could offer not just survival—but renewal.
Republicans in Congress have long insisted that we cannot leave coal communities behind in the energy transition, and rightly so. So why are they pushing forward an agenda that kills SMRs?
The Problems with House Republicans' Plan
We've made real bipartisan progress on nuclear energy in recent years.
The CHIPS and Science Act included $800 million to support coal-to-nuclear projects, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created tax credits for advanced nuclear projects, and the ADVANCE Act, signed into law last year, streamlined licensing for new reactors.
But right now, Republicans in the House are threatening to set us back decades.
They have proposed funding cuts to the Department of Energy's Loan Program Office and taking away tax credits for nuclear facilities.
These programs are not luxuries—they are necessities. Nuclear projects require significant capital and long development timelines. Without government support, most private investors will walk away. These cuts could freeze SMR development before it gets off the ground.
This Should be Bipartisan; Democrats Aren't Without Fault
Too often, Democrats have fallen into the trap of making it seem as though investing in the clean energy transition is only about appeasing costal elites concerned about climate change. But as we work to decarbonize our electric grid and protect the planet for future generations, we cannot leave behind the hardworking Americans whose livelihoods currently depend on the fossil fuels industry.
That's why I believe investing in our energy future can and should be a bipartisan goal, which is why I supported the confirmation of Secretary Wright. I also pressed him on protecting SMR investments and ensuring consistent funding for nuclear projects.
There's no reason this issue should divide Congress. Nuclear energy delivers clean power, strengthens our grid, supports union labor, and revitalizes forgotten communities. That's a rare combination – one both parties should rally behind.
What's Next?
If the United States wants to remain competitive and secure, we need to do more than protect the progress we've made. We must cut red tape and streamline permitting without sacrificing safety or community input.
We also need to foster domestic innovation and onshore the supply chain for nuclear components, so that our energy security does not depend on unfriendly nations. China and Russia already have operational SMRs. The U.S. must catch up.
I will keep fighting for these goals in the Senate, but Congress must step up.
This isn't about ideology. It's about power—literally. Keeping the lights on, keeping our economy humming, and keeping our promises to workers across the country.