The United States is facing an urgent strategic issue that is moving much faster than most of Washington’s current energy debates.
Right now, China is rapidly moving ahead in next-generation nuclear, specifically thorium-fueled molten salt reactors, building directly on technologies the United States originally pioneered at Oak Ridge. Their TMSR-LF1 molten salt reactor has already demonstrated key milestones in the thorium fuel cycle under real operating conditions. China has developed a pathway to abundant, high-density, domestically controlled energy capable of supporting industry, AI and data centers, maritime applications, and defense for decades.
At the same time, China is positioning itself as the future exporter of this technology and associated fuel services, which would give them enduring leverage over global nuclear deployment, standards, and supply chains. If they secure cheaper and more secure sovereign baseload power while we dismantle our own strategic advantages, no tariff regime or short-term subsidy program will offset that structural gap.
By contrast, the U.S. is allowing its position to erode. We are downblending our limited U-233 inventory, treating it as a cleanup problem instead of what it is: a uniquely valuable strategic asset for advanced fuel cycles and life-saving medical isotope production. This is exactly the quiet, procedural decision-making that risks foreclosing options while our competitors scale up.
Congress can still change course, but it must act now:
Immediately Pause U-233 Downblending Place a hold on further downblending and require a comprehensive strategic review of remaining U-233, including its potential for thorium/molten salt reactors, medical isotopes, and national security.
Recognize U-233 and Thorium R&D as Strategic Assets Direct DOE to treat these materials and programs as strategic infrastructure, not mere liabilities, with clear interagency coordination and regular reporting to Congress.
Launch a Serious Thorium / Molten Salt Demonstration Program Provide dedicated, multi-year funding for U.S.-based demonstrations in partnership with private innovators, with milestones focused on deployed hardware and licensing, not just reports.
Modernize Advanced Reactor Licensing Instruct NRC and DOE to create fit-for-purpose licensing pathways for non-light-water designs so U.S. companies can build and iterate here at home instead of ceding deployment experience to China.
Require Transparency & Briefings Request immediate briefings on U-233 inventories, current and planned downblending, and DOE’s thorium/MSR activities so Congress can make informed decisions before irreversible steps are taken.
Beyond the federal urgency, there is a major upside here for forward-looking states.
A state that chooses to lead on thorium and molten salt reactor development through hosting secure U-233/thorium R&D infrastructure, aligning its regulatory environment, and partnering with private innovators can position itself as a long-term anchor for:
World-class industrial power costs: Stable, high-density baseload power can underwrite advanced manufacturing, refining, AI and data centers, and port and logistics facilities, drawing in the very projects now shopping globally for clean, reliable energy.
High-wage technical and research jobs: National labs, engineering programs, medical isotope production, and nuclear supply-chain firms cluster around serious demonstration efforts, creating durable, specialized employment rather than transient construction booms.
Cutting-edge medical and technology ecosystems: Leveraging U-233 for medical isotopes supports a globally relevant health sciences hub, while advanced nuclear capability underpins secure digital infrastructure for finance, AI, and defense applications.
Energy, economic, and strategic credibility: A state that proves this out, prudently and safely, will not only strengthen U.S. security, it will become a model other states and allies look to for standards, supply-chain partnerships, and deployment know-how.
Put simply, this is the kind of targeted leadership that can make a state’s energy and industrial base the benchmark others quietly measure against.
One concrete path would be to build on the framework, as an example, of S.4242 – the Thorium Energy Security Act of 2022, which sought to preserve U-233 inventories to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors and required DOE to secure and manage those inventories strategically. The government could:
Explore state-level resolutions or companion legislation urging preservation of U-233 and support for thorium/MSR R&D.
Signal interest in hosting secure storage, processing, and demonstration facilities consistent with an updated Thorium Energy Security framework.
Pair that with state incentives and regulatory clarity that welcome advanced nuclear innovators while maintaining rigorous safety and environmental standards.
China is not waiting. If we continue down this path, we are not simply “falling behind,” we are choosing to surrender long-term energy, technological, and geopolitical leverage, along with an opportunity for American states to anchor the next generation of strategic industry at home rather than abroad.
Julia Cartwright, PhD, is a Senior Research Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
As the end of 2025 nears, the question arises: What can Americans expect in the world of energy policy in 2026?
Predicting future events where energy is concerned is always a risky enterprise. After all, if anyone could accurately foresee where, say, the Brent price for crude oil would sit a week from today, that person would soon become fabulously wealthy and never have to work another day in his or her life. But no one can actually do that because too many widely disparate factors impact where prices will head on a daily basis. This overarching theme holds true in most areas of the widely diverse energy space.
Still, just as energy details like exact future oil prices or rig count levels are impossible to know with certainty, some overarching trends are entirely foreseeable. As an example, it was entirely predictable a year ago that 2025 would become a year in which an energy policy revolution would take place. Donald Trump had been elected to a second term and was in the process of naming cabinet nominees who would lead an effort to reverse the onerous regulations and economically ruinous subsidy spending of the Biden years.
A policy revolution was entirely predictable, even though, as I wrote at the time, it would take a somewhat different form than many were expecting. There would be no replay of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda of Trump’s first term mainly due to a series of intractable economic factors. Instead, we’d have a “Build, Baby, Build” revolution in which policy changes have focused on setting the conditions for a boom in energy infrastructure like pipelines, LNG export facilities, baseload power generation, major transmission projects, new and expanded mining operations, and more into place.
With business-oriented cabinet officials like Chris Wright at the Energy Department and Doug Burgum at Interior leading the way, it was easy to predict that the second Trumpian energy revolution would focus on measures that allow markets, not the dictates of central government planners, to lead the charge. The command-and-control schemes, crony capitalism, and green subsidies would be repealed or phased away. Banks and investment houses would be put on notice that their discriminatory, ESG-focused lending practices would be policed. Rather than focus their personal energy on finding ways to punish disfavored energy players, administration officials would spend their days finding ways to speed up permitting processes.
Those things and more all came about in Year One of this second Trump presidency. It has been a true policy-driven revolution.
Now, as the dawn of 2026 nears, the direction of the administration’s Year Two agenda becomes equally predictable: Consolidation of the gains made in 2025.
The ending/phasing out of the green subsidies must be maintained since they distort markets by encouraging irrational allocations of capital. The capital thrown at wind and solar will be more productively allocated to building new natural gas and nuclear baseload plants and ensuring existing coal plants stay up and running to keep America’s lights on. The capital misallocated by legacy carmakers – like Ford and GM – to their foundering EV dreams must be reallocated to making cars American consumers can afford and actually desire to own.
With global markets creating rapidly rising demand for U.S. LNG, it’s time to “Build, Baby, Build” those needed new export facilities and the pipelines needed to feed the gas into them. Those energy gains can’t be consolidated without driving into action the streamlined processes to issue the needed permits.
And then there are the mines. Regardless of how quickly their permits can be issued, America can’t have any of the pipelines, LNG facilities, power plants, AI datacenters, or transmission lines without the raw mineral materials that make them work. America can no longer afford to be held hostage to supply chains for these materials dominated by China. That means more mines, and lots of them.
The President and his people have worked overtime throughout 2025 to ensure the executive branch’s side of this policy revolution is in place. Now, Congress must act to enshrine it permanently in law. Getting that done, consolidating the gains made in 2025 into action and statutes, will dominate the energy policy agenda throughout 2026. It’s all very predictable.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.
The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is more than 60% for electricity generation and more than 80% for primary energy consumption.
In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.
In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.
That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”
In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.
McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.
The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.
The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.
If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.
Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.
McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries. This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.
When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.
The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.
For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation andScience and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Two months ago, Arizona’s monopoly utilities and their political allies were patting themselves on the back about the expansion and development of a couple of new natural gas projects that they claim will help the Grand Canyon state keep up with growing energy demand.
On the surface, an announcement of new projects like the Transwestern Expansion should have been great news for Arizona ratepayers. Our state is in desperate need of more reliable, dispatchable power; especially after years of reckless green new deal investments that have raised costs and reduced reliability.
But sadly, it turns out that SRP’s enthusiasm for gas isn’t about expanding baseload power on the grid after all. The new gas capacity is instead being used to replace existing coal power generation that SRP has pledged to shut down in Arizona. All to meet ridiculous self-imposed carbon reduction goals and climate commitments that should have been junked a long time ago…
As Americans enjoy their freedom — as they have a God-given right to do — they drive where they want in privately owned cars (gas powered, hybrid, or electric), live comfortably in heated-and-air-conditioned homes, and spend their evenings cooking dinner on gas (or electric stoves), and watching whatever television program or sporting event they choose. All of it brought to them by virtue of abundant and affordable energy.
According to 2024 data published by the U.S. Department of Energy, 82.16 percent of the energy consumed in the United States came from fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum and natural gas. Another 8.67 percent came from nuclear power plants.
In other words, more than 90 percent of the energy used in this country last year came from these sources.
Only 1.64% came from windmills; and only 1.17 percent came from solar panels.
As this nation’s economy and population has grown, so too has its power needs. Since 1960, in fact, the consumption of energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power has more than doubled.
But the consumption of nuclear energy peaked in 2019 — and has stagnated since then — while facing a campaign of opposition from liberal environmental groups.
This is ironic, however, because as the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power increased in recent decades, greenhouse gas emissions declined. From 1990 to 2022, for example, fossil fuel consumption increased by 8.64 percent, according to the Department of Energy. But during that same period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas emissions declined by three percent.
Nonetheless, groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the National Resources Defense Council have sought not merely to stop the growth of this type of energy production, but to roll it back. In theory, they would replace the production lost from nuclear power and fossil fuels with energy produced from “renewable sources,” including windmills and solar panels.
They are particularly opposed to the development of nuclear power — even though nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases.
“The Sierra Club,” says its website, “continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants.”
350.org also opposes the construction of new nuclear plants. “New nuclear,” its website says, “is a dangerous distraction in the race to solve climate change.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that “expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution.”
However, some progress has been made recently in resisting this campaign to foist renewable energy development upon the United States. In 2021, some of this nation’s largest banks — including Wells Fargo, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America — joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. This alliance, said the Sierra Club’s magazine, “signaled a commitment by member institutions to develop voluntary targets that support a climate goal of 1.5C above preindustrial levels.” Since then, however, each of these banks has dropped out of the alliance.
Unfortunately, the ”renewables only” advocates have also achieved some victories in recent years.
Since 2001, the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign has supported the closing of more than 300 coal-fired power plants in this country. In 2021, construction of a liquid natural gas export terminal in Oregon was also canceled. Then, in 2023, a proposed gas-fired power plant in Connecticut was canceled, too. These groups also pressured California into nearly shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which provides 9% of the state’s electricity, before state energy commissioners voted to extend its operation to 2030.
The relentless campaign to force America away from fossil fuels and nuclear power and towards wind and solar is also driving America toward energy dependence on the People’s Republic of China.
The Heritage Foundation published a report last year by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Miles Pollard that showed how this is happening. “China has succeeded in dominating the world’s supply chains in green energy products and components,” it said. “If America continues to require the use of these green energy products, it will cede economic power to China, giving China control of American energy security.”
Limiting how we produce energy in the United States will, as a matter of course, impose limitations on our freedom. Reliance on China for our energy supply chain will make our country susceptible to economic coercion. Limiting how we produce energy, means less of it and fewer choices about how to use it. This is of course baked into the climate activists’ view of world, one where experts tell us we must drive EVs, use electric stoves, and eat less meat, so that even the smallest of life’s details are predecided.
To preserve freedom, we must unfetter ourselves from ideologically driven restrictions on fossil fuels and overcome decades of naysaying about nuclear power. In so doing we can ensure a future where abundant affordable energy gives every American real choice, which is the heart of freedom.
