“For half a century, ACA has been providing the world … with advocacy, analysis, and awareness on some of the most critical topics of international peace and security, including on how to achieve our common, shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
U.S. Selects Companies for Controversial Plutonium Transfer
July/August 2026
By Mia Clarke
The Department of Energy announced the list of companies selected to participate in an unprecedented program under which they would receive weapons-grade plutonium recycled from U.S. nuclear weapons for use in nuclear power plants.
The five companies tapped to begin advanced negotiations on plans for transferring and securing the plutonium are Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, Shine Technologies, and Flibe Energy, the department said June 22 in a written statement. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright was previously on the board at Oklo but divested his shares before joining the Energy Department.
“Surplus plutonium was once viewed solely as a nuclear liability and a multi-billion-dollar financial drain on taxpayers—but it doesn’t have to remain one,” Josh Jarrell, the deputy assistant secretary for the nuclear fuel cycle, said in a statement June 22. “[W]e are redirecting this Cold War legacy to serve as a vital energy asset, powering the next generation of American nuclear innovation.”
In the same press release, the Office of Nuclear Energy stated that the “Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program was … formed to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel America’s nuclear renaissance.”
Although department officials and other advocates say the program will harness the private sector to deliver national energy independence, some members of Congress and nonproliferation experts have expressed concerns that it could create new security risks. “It raises serious weapons proliferation concerns, makes little economic sense, and may adversely affect the nations defense posture,” Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.) and Reps. Don Beyer (Va.) and John Garamendi (Calif.), all Democrats, wrote in a September letter to the department.
In May 2025, President Donald Trump initiated a new nuclear energy policy that aims to promote a “nuclear renaissance” in order to increase domestic energy stability and independence by building new nuclear power reactors.
In October, the Energy Department reported that it had approximately 20 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons to make available to U.S. power companies.
As the Energy Department dismantled Cold War-era nuclear weapons over the years, it accumulated more than 50 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The department managed it by blending some stocks into mixed-oxide fuel, and later by diluting and disposing of other stocks.
A May 2025 executive order instructed the energy secretary to stop the dilute-and-dispose program and explore alternatives, including recycling, for surplus plutonium. Another executive order that month called for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to simplify the licensing process for new reactors.
At that time, Ernest Moniz, a former U.S. energy secretary, warned that allowing companies to use plutonium-based fuels could “Encourage states without nuclear weapons to develop and deploy technologies that are usable in nuclear weapons programs” and “Produce new radioactive waste streams that must be managed, at considerable cost and risk.”
When coupled with pressure on the NRC, this program “could lead to the hasty deployment of advanced reactors with safety and security flaws,” Moniz said. “Additionally, reorganizing and reducing the independence of the NRC could lead to the hasty deployment of advanced reactors with safety and security flaws. A major event would, like those in the past, increase regulatory requirements and set back nuclear energy for a long time.”
In their letter, Markey, Beyer and Garamendi voiced concerns that giving weapons-grade plutonium to private entities would damage the U.S. nonproliferation strategy. Citing policies dating to the Ford and Carter administrations, they highlighted the contradiction in discouraging other states from reprocessing plutonium while doing so itself on domestic soil and noted the potential dangers of rogue states or terrorists accessing this material.