Nuclear energy has moved to the core of American strategic thinking, from being merely a peripheral climate policy tool to a central strategic concern. This manifests a strategic reawakening that aims to redefine the US role in a world surrounded by AI-driven, increased energy demands, supply chain pressures, and heightened geopolitical competition. The recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) 2025 encompasses the core national interests, the guiding principles, and the means at disposal to achieve them. It encompasses American national priorities, including military strength, technological leadership, and regional strategies across the Western Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. NSS 2025 not only highlights the importance of a reliable energy source but also its geopolitical potential to influence foreign partnerships. The strategy has significantly broadened the scope of nuclear energy, moving beyond nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation to frame nuclear energy as a tool of geopolitical competitiveness and national resilience.
Why is American nuclear energy reawakening now?
NSS 2025 integrates nuclear energy into a pillar of national stability from a reduced segment of the climate portfolio. Amidst the fragile supply chain of electricity, the consumption of data-centers is expected to rise by 165 per cent by 2030. Characterized by its low interruption rates, nuclear energy is capable of delivering high-output baseload electricity. This equation is complicated by America’s 72 per cent export of enriched uranium and its competitors, Russia and China, amounting to 43 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, of the global uranium enrichment capacity. The long-held US leadership in innovation and export capacity has eroded due to its slow-paced regulatory framework and domestic political ambivalence. In contrast, with the construction of 37 reactors in the last decade, China is expected to surpass the US nuclear power reactor fleet by 2030.
The geopolitical relevance of nuclear energy
The geopolitical structure of nuclear energy stands on three pillars. First, it creates a long-term dependency, forming a partnership of 40-60 years, where the host country depends on the supplier for regulation, maintenance and training etc. Nuclear fuel supply is another factor that buttresses the geopolitical symbiosis between the host and the supplier states. In the absence of a stable nuclear fuel supply and uranium enrichment cooperation, not even advanced reactors can function. The second dependence factor is the benchmark or standard setting that eventually also defines the technical and regulatory framework of the nuclear supply markets. For instance, all four reactors being constructed between 2017 to 2024 are either of Russian or Chinese design, and the former is building 19 reactors worth $200 billion abroad. This significantly helps them sustain the geopolitical influence of these discrete commercial activities. The last factor is the nuclear energy financing scheme, where the favorable options are those with high capital available. Together, these factors are making nuclear energy strategically relevant.
The efficacy of the NSS 2025 Plan – comparative analysis with the past plans
A comparative analysis of the US National Security Strategies over the decade unveils a significant evolution in the role of nuclear energy in American strategic thought. The NSS 2010 confined the role of nuclear energy in mitigating climate change efforts. The energy was supposed to be ‘developed in a safer manner’ while ensuring the safety through ‘regulatory bodies and training of operators.’
The NSS 2015 was more grounded in nonproliferation concerns and reflected the challenges that marked those years. The document linked the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies under a ‘comprehensive and verifiable deal that assures Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.’ NSS 2017 retained the hyphenation of peaceful nuclear technology as a means of constraining adversaries rather than a tool for socioeconomic development. However, it clearly indicated the American thought reassertion of leadership and to ‘improve America’s technological edge in energy, including nuclear technology, next generation nuclear reactors, better batteries, advanced computing, carbon-capture technologies.’
Even without being an NSS document, the 2021 Interim Guidance by the Biden administration sustained the use of nuclear technology as a lever of strategic influence. What makes NSS 2025 distinctive is the strategic orientation of nuclear energy. The document explicitly frames it as a tool of energy dominance, industrial competitiveness, and geopolitical positioning. It mentions that ‘restoring American energy dominance (in oil, gas, coal, and nuclear)’ and US energy exports are centered on curbing the geopolitical influence of its adversaries and deepening alliances. Another interesting aspect is the special mention of economic engagement in the regions of Africa and the Middle East, which will be based on nuclear energy exports. Exclusive mention of switch from ‘aid-focused relationship to…. investment-focused relationship’ and signals development of ‘US-backed nuclear energy…’ to leverage strategically. Unlike previous documents, it clearly adds multiple dimensions to nuclear energy where it is used to shape foreign affairs, strengthen domestic capabilities, mitigate global threats, and integrate with emerging technologies.
When combined with the statistical forecasts, the latest NSS enunciates the strategic reawakening of America in nuclear energy. All this is going to happen in the backdrop of a ‘shrinking nuclear energy ecosystem’ where projections indicate that nearly 256 nuclear reactors, producing 240 GW, will retire by 2050, creating a replacement gap. This change will coincide with the peak electrification, data-driven demand, and international climate milestones. Realizing the potential, the NSS 2025 identifies key markets and investor opportunities to realize the future of the US.
The logic behind the exclusive mention of Africa and the Middle East in NSS 2025
Special emphasis on the regions of the Middle East and Africa in terms of nuclear cooperation further reflects American aspirations of resurgence in the nuclear energy export markets. These regions are rapidly working on energy diversification and industrial modernization to meet the increasing demand for electricity. Their limited landmass, coupled with biodiversity factors and water stress, makes nuclear energy the best option available for them. To demonstrate, even a giant nuclear plant of 1000 megawatts take less area and is a more environmentally sustainable option than other sources, as solar or wind.
Rebranding American Nuclear Diplomacy American rebranding of nuclear energy diplomacy requires a detailed examination of America’s standing in the global nuclear reactor fleet. By 2024, the global nuclear reactor fleet exceeded the average age of 30 years. Whereas nuclear energy faces the ever-growing demand for energy and climate commitments. To meet them, let alone dominating the nuclear energy lines, domestic strategies alone would not suffice. It requires international collaboration on global nuclear safety and harmony in regulatory frameworks. Concomitantly, it requires domestic feasibility credibility, which seems quite unrealistic in the US. The nuclear workforce in the US should triple by 2050 to meet these lofty goals, yet the number of nuclear engineering graduates was a 20 per cent drop in 2022 from peak levels. Investment in human capital is also important in parallel to regulatory capacity and diplomatic ambitions, although strict immigration policies are likely to negatively impact it. The global nuclear energy market is likely to be constrained by ageing fleets and fuel supply dependence, which decreases the chances of market hoarding but intensifies the competition. Within the competitive market, the risk of fragmentation of nuclear security standards, operational risks and climate commitments risks being undermined. The competitive edge is determined by execution speed and the depth of the nuclear infrastructure. By way of demonstration, the completion of the US nuclear projects Vogtle 3 and 4 is likely to take 15 years, and exceed $35 billion, compared to the Chinese timeline of an average of 7 years and Russia’s being 8 years. These gaps underscore the need for US forward-looking strategies to safeguard its strategic advantage in nuclear energy that is durable, cooperative in frameworks and operationally stable.
This article was published in another form at https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251221-nuclear-energy-in-the-2025-nss-a-policy-correction-or-the-strategic-reawakening/
Ms Anam Murad Khan is Research Assistant at the Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad.
