US ‘nuclear bros’ test America’s atomic revival
Young founders backed by Silicon Valley and Trump race to start reactors despite experts’ safety fears
At a factory in Texas, Matt Loszak is building a new type of nuclear reactor he hopes will allow the US to reclaim leadership in an industry dominated by Russia and China.
“Our goal is to ship hundreds and possibly thousands of reactors every year,” the 35-year-old founder of Aalo Atomics said as he inspected components for the Aalo-X, designed to power AI data centres.
Aalo is one of several US start-ups planning to switch on new reactors this month ahead of a July 4 deadline set by President Donald Trump to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s independence.
Antares Nuclear and Valar Atomics have already announced they have achieved “criticality” — the moment a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining. Radiant Nuclear and Oklo told the FT they were in the final stages of receiving safety clearances under Trump’s pilot programme, which aims to have at least three test reactors reach criticality by the target date.
Many of the founders leading the charge are under 40 and come from outside the nuclear industry, while some have ties to the Trump administration. Backed by Silicon Valley, they say small reactors can help meet soaring electricity demand from AI data centres.
Critics, however, warn that entrepreneurial culture is a poor fit for a sector where safety is paramount.
“There is the real nuclear industry . . . and then there are the ‘nuclear bros’,” said Allison Macfarlane, who served as chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2012 to 2014.
“They are in the start-up model. They move fast and break things . . . They don’t know that is the opposite of what you do with nuclear. If you break things with nuclear, it’s really serious.”
The push comes amid a surge of investment in nuclear, with early-stage companies raising more than $7bn over the past 18 months to design and build small modular reactors.
Tech investors, cloud computing “hyperscalers” and the Trump administration are betting that small reactors can ease an energy crunch that threatens America’s AI ambitions and restore US leadership in the small modular reactor sector, where China and Russia have moved faster.
For Loszak, the mission is not just commercial.
“It’s very important that the country which achieves mass manufacture of nuclear be democratic,” he said. “If China mass produces small reactors, and they get deployed all over the western world, then it’s pretty bad if they have their fingers on the kill switch of our energy.”
Trump has invited nuclear founders to the White House, stripped back regulation and awarded government contracts to start-ups including Oklo, which counted Chris Wright as a board member until his appointment as US energy secretary last year.
“They showed that private industry can move this forward and can move it forward at a pace that we haven’t seen in the past in the nuclear industry,” said Michael Goff, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy office.
But even some industry insiders warn the flood of investment could prove part of an AI hype cycle that risks damaging the wider nuclear sector.
Loszak rejects the claim that nuclear’s new entrants threaten safety, arguing that excessive regulation has held back a technology that could provide abundant low-carbon energy. He welcomes the change in approach under Trump.
“Ten years ago there were anti-nuclear people in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” he said, adding that “keeping nuclear safe is one thing, but actively preventing it from being developed is kind of a different thing”.
Aalo, which Loszak founded in 2023 with Idaho National Labs nuclear expert Yasir Arafat, has raised almost $300mn from investors, including Valor Equity Partners, an early backer of SpaceX and Tesla.
Its Aalo-X design uses liquid sodium to cool the reactor core rather than water, which he says allows for a smaller, lighter machine that operates at normal atmospheric pressure so is less risky than standard pressurised water reactors.
During the tour of Aalo’s plant, he explained his desire to promote an “underdog” technology that could benefit humanity, saying a nuclear rollout in his native Ontario helped clear up his childhood asthma because the technology replaced dirty coal-fired power stations in the early 2000s.
The company is one of 10 selected for the pilot programme, which bypasses lengthy Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing.
It plans to manufacture almost all its components in-house at its Austin factory, and to ship ready-built reactors to customers rather than assemble them on-site — a model Loszak says could unlock the “holy grail” of nuclear economics: factory mass production.
Other young entrepreneurs are also trying to prove nuclear can move at start-up speed.
Isaiah Taylor, a 27-year-old high school dropout, has raised $450mn to fund Valar Atomics — another company selected for Trump’s pilot scheme. His great-grandfather was a physicist on the Manhattan Project during the second world war but Taylor has no nuclear qualifications of his own
“I’m super grateful to this administration. I think they have really done something historic,” said Taylor, who is often photographed wearing a “Make Nuclear Great Again” cap and is a member of the same Christian nationalist church as US defence secretary Pete Hegseth.
Like Loszak, Taylor casts the race in geopolitical terms. “Russia is now the world’s premier nuclear technology exporter,” he said. “I think that’s a very bad thing . . . changing this back to American energy dominance is absolutely a national security issue for us and our allies.”
Taylor says his lack of experience is offset by the team he has assembled. Valar, which is developing a helium-cooled reactor, has hired experienced nuclear engineers, including Sonat Sen, a former Idaho National Lab scientist and lead engineer at rival developer X-energy.
Meanwhile, the start-up’s investors include Anduril Industries founder Palmer Luckey, Palantir Technologies chief technology officer Shyam Sankar and Riot Ventures general partner Stephen Marcus.
Taylor has also become a lightning rod for critics of the atomic energy upstarts after suing the NRC and making claims about nuclear safety that experts have derided as false.
Two experts last year challenged his assertion on X that holding some of Valar’s spent fuel for five minutes would only expose a person to radiation equivalent to a CT scan.
Nuclear engineer Gavin Ridley said such a dose would be lethal within 85 milliseconds, while whatisnuclear.com founder Nick Touran lambasted the statement as “dangerously wrong”.
Taylor said his post had been misunderstood and later published an analysis defending his claim, while Touran told the FT the two had resolved their dispute and that he was cheering Valar on despite doubts about the commercial prospects for the small modular reactor sector.
“We can’t ignore the fact they have hired a pretty capable team,” Touran said.
Valar is one of several reactor developers and US states challenging the NRC’s authority, alleging that the regulator’s licensing process for small reactors is too restrictive and should not be a federal matter.
Their campaign has gained momentum since Trump last year criticised the agency’s “overly risk-averse culture”, removed its chair and installed a team from Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) to restructure it.
Taylor believes the Trump administration’s efforts to improve the NRC’s effectiveness are bearing fruit.
“There absolutely is a sort of cultural speed of an organisation that the NRC needs to improve,” he said. “But I think that we’ve kind of figured out the right path to do it . . . I think it’s headed in the right direction.”
However, the campaign has alarmed some atomic energy experts, who warn that pressure on the NRC risks undermining people’s trust in nuclear oversight.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Trump administration’s repeated attacks on the independence and scientific integrity of the agency could have far-reaching implications.
“It is clear political considerations are prioritised over the commission’s role in providing independent, science-based safety reviews,” he said. “This hurts public confidence.”