admin
The Energy Department quietly moving to bankroll as many as ten new nuclear reactors is a scandal dressed up as national planning. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has signaled the administration will use a newly rebranded financing arm to nudge private capital with low-interest loans and federal backing, effectively socializing risk for projects that will ultimately power corporate AI juggernauts. This is a big-government solution to what should be private-sector infrastructure decisions, and taxpayers deserve to know why their wallets are on the line.
Officials are already shopping sites and soliciting proposals to build giant AI data centers on DOE holdings, including moves to host them at Oak Ridge and Paducah — former enrichment and remediation sites turned into tech real estate. The agency’s requests for proposals make clear this isn’t hypothetical: the federal government is actively courting companies to locate power-hungry AI facilities at federal properties underwritten by public finance tools. Conservatives who believe in energy growth should cheer nuclear development, but we should not applaud a Washington takeover that favors well-connected insiders.
The rationale DOE and the tech industry put forward is the raw math: modern AI at scale demands astronomical amounts of electricity, with some projects planning capacity comparable to the output of roughly ten nuclear reactors. Tech giants and chip makers argue that accelerating AI infrastructure requires guaranteed, massive baseload power, which is why nuclear keeps surfacing as the convenient answer. That may be technically true, but necessity does not justify turning the Treasury into a venture capitalist for Silicon Valley.
Make no mistake, the federal push has been cultivated at the highest levels, with aggressive targets to increase nuclear capacity and fast-track reactor projects on a compressed timeline. Administration directives and pilot programs are being used to rewrite the old rules and give favored projects priority access to federal support, permitting, and money. Those political shortcuts risk creating a permanent alliance between government, deep-pocketed tech firms, and contractors who prosper when Washington plays central planner.
We conservatives should be blunt: we support reliable, American-made energy and the revival of nuclear where it makes sense, but we reject corporate welfare and the commandeering of taxpayer funds to bail out or accelerate private enterprises. If projects are sound and profitable, let them attract private capital; if they aren’t, the market should decide, not opaque loan guarantees and sweetheart financing from a politicized Energy Department. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent — once Washington proves it will backstop big tech’s power needs, the spending and influence will only grow.
There are also serious national-security and sovereignty questions that nobody in the technocratic elite wants to answer: who controls the power plants and the data centers, where will critical components and fuels come from, and what happens if hostile actors target centralized AI infrastructure? Central planning invites single points of failure. Conservatives who cherish American resilience should demand decentralization, robust oversight, and strict limits on how federal loans can be used to prop up private technological monopolies.
If Washington truly cares about American leadership in energy and AI, there are better routes: eliminate needless regulatory hurdles, open the grid to competitive investment, give incentives that reward new entrants rather than bailouts for the already powerful, and insist on full congressional transparency and strict guardrails for any federal financing. We must defend both national prosperity and taxpayers against a backroom deal where elites consolidate energy and data power in the name of progress. The American people deserve honest debates and accountable processes — not another secretive scheme that hands the keys to our energy future to those who already run our digital lives.
Now is the moment for patriots to speak up: demand hearings, reject blanket loan guarantees without ironclad protections, and insist any nuclear expansion be done on terms that protect ratepayers, national security, and free enterprise. We can and should build a stronger energy foundation for American innovation, but it must be done by empowering entrepreneurs, defending private capital, and keeping Washington out of the business of picking corporate winners. The elites may want to rewire the country to suit their interests; conservatives must stand for the hardworking Americans who will pay the bill.
