The Dangerous Fusion of Presidential Power and Private Profit: How Trump's Nuclear Ambitions Threaten Regulatory Independence

The Facts: A Concerning Convergence of Interests

President Donald Trump’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, has announced plans to merge with TAE Technologies, a company developing nuclear fusion energy. This merger would position the President as a major investor in a nuclear energy company while his administration simultaneously oversees and regulates the nuclear power industry. Trump Media, which owns the struggling Truth Social platform, recently valued the President’s stake at $1.6 billion, managed in a trust by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.

The Trump administration has aggressively pursued policies that benefit the nuclear energy sector, including fusion technology that remains unproven. The administration has sought to speed up safety reviews for new nuclear power plants, lower thresholds for acceptable radiation exposure, and reduce regulatory oversight. In May, President Trump signed four executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear power plant construction, including directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to streamline safety rules and approve new reactor applications within 18 months.

Regulatory Landscape and Executive Actions

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, traditionally an independent agency operating at a distance from the White House, has faced unprecedented political pressure from the Trump administration. In a historic move, President Trump abruptly fired Christopher Hanson, who had served as chair of the commission under President Biden—marking the first time in NRC’s history that a commissioner had been removed. Trump appointed David A. Wright as chairman, though Wright has insisted the NRC would remain independent and not “rubber stamp” reactor approvals.

The administration has also taken steps to potentially bypass NRC oversight entirely. The Energy and Defense Departments have started programs to build novel reactor designs on federal lands and military bases, which would not require NRC approval. This represents a significant departure from established regulatory protocols and raises serious questions about safety oversight.

The Fusion Technology Context

Nuclear fusion differs fundamentally from traditional nuclear fission. While fission reactors split large atoms (typically uranium) and produce dangerous radiation levels requiring strict safety regulations, fusion combines smaller atoms together with no risk of runaway chain reactions or meltdowns. The radioactive waste from fusion is less dangerous, leading the NRC to unanimously vote in 2023 to regulate fusion reactors more lightly than fission reactors, treating them similarly to particle accelerators used for scientific research.

Despite these technical differences, the regulatory challenges remain substantial. As Adam Stein, director of nuclear innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, noted, the biggest challenges are likely technical rather than regulatory, and it remains unclear if TAE or any other company has solved them. Additionally, building fuel supply chains for fusion reactors presents another significant challenge that would inevitably involve federal regulators.

The Ethical and Democratic Implications

This convergence of personal financial interest and presidential power represents one of the most serious ethical challenges to American democracy in modern history. When a sitting president holds substantial financial stakes in industries his administration regulates and promotes, it creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that undermines public trust and institutional integrity.

The Founding Fathers established systems of checks and balances precisely to prevent such concentrations of power and interest. They understood that democracy requires leaders who serve the public good, not their personal financial interests. The merger between Trump Media and TAE Technologies—coupled with the administration’s aggressive pro-nuclear policies—creates a perception, if not the reality, that regulatory decisions are being influenced by the President’s financial portfolio rather than sound science and public safety considerations.

Peter A. Bradford, who previously served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, articulated the fundamental concern: “Having the president and his family have a large stake in a particular energy source is very problematic.” This isn’t merely problematic—it’s potentially dangerous to both democratic norms and public safety.

The Erosion of Regulatory Independence

The Trump administration’s actions toward the NRC represent a disturbing pattern of eroding independent regulatory agencies’ independence. The abrupt firing of Commissioner Hanson, the pressure to accelerate approvals, and the suggestion to lower radiation exposure limits all signal an administration more concerned with expediency than rigorous safety oversight.

Allison M. Macfarlane, who previously led the NRC, warned that “eroding the agency’s independence put the country at risk” and that “the politicians have just put their thumb on the regulator.” This thumb on the scale becomes particularly concerning when the politician in question has personal financial interests in the outcome.

The two Democratic commissioners on the NRC have expressed legitimate concerns that they could be fired for making decisions at odds with the administration. Commissioner Bradley R. Crowell stated at a Senate hearing in September, “I think on any given day, I could be fired by the administration for reasons unknown.” This environment of fear and uncertainty undermines the NRC’s ability to perform its vital safety mission without political interference.

The Broader Pattern of Ethical Concerns

This nuclear energy situation fits within a broader pattern of the Trump administration blurring lines between personal business interests and official government actions. The administration has similarly taken steps to reduce regulatory oversight of the crypto industry, particularly by the Securities and Exchange Commission, while Trump Media engages in crypto investing. The President also signed an executive order that would make it difficult for states to regulate artificial intelligence, something tech companies had wanted.

While the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, claims that “neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest,” the appearance of conflict alone can damage public trust. In a democracy, the perception of integrity is nearly as important as the reality.

The Path Forward: Restoring Integrity and Independence

America must reaffirm its commitment to regulatory independence and ethical governance. Several steps are urgently needed:

First, Congress should strengthen ethics laws to prevent sitting presidents from maintaining financial interests in industries their administrations regulate. The current trust arrangements are insufficient to address the appearance of conflict.

Second, the NRC’s independence must be protected and reinforced. Commissioners should serve fixed terms without fear of political removal for making science-based decisions. The agency’s safety standards should be determined by experts, not political appointees responding to industry pressure.

Third, transparency must be paramount. All communications between the administration and companies in which the President has financial interests should be fully documented and publicly disclosed.

Finally, we must recommit to the principle that public service means serving the public interest—not private financial interests. Leaders at all levels of government should divest from businesses that could create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts.

Conclusion: Protecting Democracy from Financial Entanglements

The merger between Trump Media and TAE Technologies, occurring alongside the Trump administration’s aggressive promotion of nuclear power, represents a critical test for American democracy. Will we allow personal financial interests to influence policy decisions that affect public safety and national security? Or will we reaffirm our commitment to ethical governance and regulatory independence?

The stakes could not be higher. Nuclear power, while offering potential benefits for clean energy, involves serious safety considerations that must be evaluated without political or financial pressure. The independence of regulatory agencies like the NRC is not a bureaucratic technicality—it’s a vital safeguard that protects public health and safety.

As citizens committed to democratic principles, we must demand that our leaders serve the public interest above their personal financial interests. We must insist on rigorous ethical standards and independent regulatory oversight. And we must remember that democracy depends not just on elections, but on the integrity with which power is exercised between elections.

The fusion of presidential power and private profit threatens to melt down the very foundations of our democratic system. We must act now to reinforce the institutional safeguards that protect both our democracy and our safety.