Two companies have already switched on experimental nuclear reactors under a Trump administration program that dramatically slashed safety regulations, reaching the president's goal with just five days to spare before the July 4, 2026 deadline. The speed of deployment—achieved in less than one year—has sparked a sharp divide between industry boosters and safety experts who warn that cutting decades of hard-won nuclear safeguards amounts to reckless acceleration.
Antares Nuclear announced on June 4, 2026, that it had gone critical. Valar Atomics followed on June 18, 2026, and is now producing tens of kilowatts of heat from its reactor core operating out of a tentlike structure in the Utah desert. The goal, set about one year ago, required at least three new experimental reactors to be operational by the symbolic date of America's 250th anniversary.
The Department of Energy launched its Reactor Pilot Program specifically to help companies build and test reactors by "radically cutting back on the regulations" normally required. The Energy Department rewrote its safety and security standards this year to make regulatory approval easier for companies. Critically, the department consulted with the companies building the reactors but not with the public, and it exempted the new reactors from environmental reviews.
The Speed and the Stakes
Nick Touran, chief nuclear officer at Ocean Atomics, called the acceleration historic. "We haven't done anything this fast, basically ever," he said, noting that his own company—which seeks to put nuclear power onto civilian ships—isn't part of the program but has been tracking it closely. "I'm just excited that we're now actually building these little reactors and trying it out and we're going to look at what the economic story is," Touran told NPR. "It's going to be so much better than sitting there talking about it like we did for the last 40 years."
But the pace has alarmed safety advocates. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the race "essentially an exercise in public relations." He said the slashing of regulations undoes decades of safety lessons learned in the nuclear industry. "This is taking us back to the 1950s, and that is not progress," Lyman said.
Much of the work is happening at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory, where several companies have set up operations. Radiant, which hopes to build small reactors for everything from disaster relief to data centers, is assembling its reactor inside a special secure building called the DOME. Rita Baranwal, the firm's chief nuclear officer, said the company is tracking to get the reactor into DOME and initiate testing by July 4, though she acknowledged Radiant probably won't be critical by the deadline.
Radiant's reactor represents a significant departure from the massive reactors operating today. It's far smaller, and its nuclear fuel takes a different form. Instead of long tubes, Radiant's reactor uses little nuclear fuel balls filled with grains of uranium. "Do you remember gobstoppers?" Baranwal said, explaining that the nuclear gobstoppers can operate at higher temperatures and are more resistant to melting down. Radiant and several other companies plan to use this type of fuel along with other technology to build smaller, more mobile reactors.
Baranwal said the company has "broken ground on our factory to mass-produce reactors. We're targeting around 50 per year." This is significant context: only 96 reactors are currently operating in the United States.
Regulatory Rollback and Public Accountability
The Energy Department claimed the cut regulations were "unnecessary" and that safety hasn't been compromised. Yet the public wasn't consulted during the rewriting of safety and security standards, and environmental reviews were waived for the new reactors—a departure from standard practice that raises questions about democratic oversight of nuclear technology.
Lyman warned that speed shouldn't be confused with safety. "Yes, of course, if you bend all the rules, you can do things quickly," he said. "But that should not be confused with anything related to a nuclear power reactor that's capable of producing electricity in a stable and safe way." He expressed particular concern that deregulation will erode standards for security requirements and environmental monitoring at a time when these mass-produced reactors could "start popping up at locations all over the country."
The distinction matters. Radiant's reactor won't be generating electricity by the July 4 deadline—only initiating testing, which isn't the same as proving commercial viability. Yet the regulatory framework is already being rewritten to accommodate rapid deployment of technology that hasn't been fully proven at scale.
Why This Matters:
This acceleration reveals a fundamental tension between innovation speed and public protection. When regulatory standards are rewritten without public input and environmental reviews are waived, citizens lose their voice in decisions about technology that could affect their communities. The fact that 50 reactors per year could eventually be mass-produced and deployed across the country—compared to the 96 currently operating—means the stakes are enormous. Safety advocates aren't opposing nuclear power; they're warning that cutting decades of hard-won safeguards to meet a political deadline prioritizes symbolic achievement over the rigorous testing that protects communities. Whether these small reactors prove economically viable or safe at scale remains unknown, yet the regulatory guardrails designed to answer those questions have already been dismantled. That's a choice with consequences that extend far beyond July 4.