Fact Check: "Experts warn Trump's NRC changes could lead to a nuclear disaster."
What We Know
The claim that experts warn President Trump's changes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could lead to a nuclear disaster is supported by various sources. Following an executive order signed by Trump on May 23, 2025, aimed at reorganizing the NRC, concerns were raised regarding the agency's ability to maintain safety standards while also expediting the licensing process for new nuclear facilities. Critics, including Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists, argue that the executive order could divert resources away from essential oversight and inspections, potentially compromising public health and safety (DOGE reorganization of nuclear regulator prompts...).
Additionally, the White House's plans to weaken the NRC's independence and relax safety regulations have alarmed nuclear safety advocates. Internal documents indicate that the administration believes the NRC's cautious approach to safety is hindering the growth of nuclear power, which they see as essential for meeting future energy demands (Trump sees weaker NRC as path to more nuclear power...). Experts warn that such changes could increase the risk of catastrophic incidents, as they may lead to less stringent safety protocols (Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises...).
Analysis
The evidence supporting the claim comes from multiple credible sources that highlight the potential risks associated with the changes to the NRC under Trump's administration. The concerns raised by experts like Edwin Lyman are particularly significant, as they come from a reputable organization focused on nuclear safety. Lyman's assertion that the reorganization could misdirect resources away from necessary safety oversight is a critical point that underscores the potential dangers of the executive order (DOGE reorganization of nuclear regulator prompts...).
Moreover, the internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post reveal a clear intention from the White House to prioritize the growth of nuclear energy over stringent safety measures. This approach has been criticized by safety advocates who argue that it could lead to a relaxation of essential safety standards, thereby increasing the likelihood of a nuclear disaster (Trump sees weaker NRC as path to more nuclear power...). The bipartisan concerns expressed by lawmakers, particularly from the Democratic side, further validate the apprehension surrounding these changes (Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises...).
While proponents of the changes argue that they are necessary for modernizing the NRC and facilitating new nuclear projects, the lack of a robust safety framework raises significant red flags. The potential for increased accidents due to reduced regulatory oversight cannot be overlooked, especially given the historical context of nuclear incidents in the U.S.
Conclusion
The claim that experts warn Trump's NRC changes could lead to a nuclear disaster is True. The evidence presented from credible sources indicates a consensus among experts and safety advocates that the reorganization and weakening of the NRC's regulatory framework could compromise public safety and increase the risk of nuclear accidents. The executive orders aimed at expediting nuclear project approvals, while potentially beneficial for energy production, pose serious risks if safety measures are not adequately maintained.
