Why Trump's Nuclear Plans Have Failed to Boost Uranium Prices

The Trump administration's aggressive push to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry through executive orders, regulatory reforms, and national security mandates has been nothing short of ambitious. Yet, despite these efforts, uranium prices remain stubbornly low—hovering around $40 per pound as of early 2025, far below the $72 peak briefly touched in 2023. The disconnect between policy ambitions and market realities reveals a stark truth: structural oversupply, delayed demand timelines, and unresolved trade uncertainties have undermined the administration's ability to drive meaningful price appreciation.

The Structural Oversupply Dilemma

Global uranium markets are drowning in excess supply. Russia and Kazakhstan alone account for nearly 40% of global production, and their state-backed producers continue to flood the market with low-cost uranium. Even as the U.S. pushes for domestic production via streamlined permitting and the Defense Production Act, these foreign competitors have no incentive to curtail output.

The administration's goal of quadrupling U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050 is a long-term vision that does little to address current oversupply. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains 95% reliant on imported fuel, with Russia and China dominating supply chains. shows that U.S. policy shifts have had negligible impact on prices, which remain tied to global supply dynamics.

Delayed Demand: A Timeline Too Far Off

The Trump orders aimed to fast-track reactor approvals, but bureaucratic inertia and project delays have stalled progress. The Versatile Test Reactor (VTR), a cornerstone of advanced reactor development, was defunded by Congress, while Vogtle Units 3 and 4 face years of further delays. Even the administration's 18-month NRC licensing target has proven unrealistic—projects like Anfield Energy's Utah uranium mine, while approved quickly, require years of construction before contributing to demand.

The 2050 target for 400 GW of capacity is a mirage for investors. reveals that no new reactors have entered operation since 2016, and the pipeline remains choked by cost overruns and regulatory hurdles. Until projects move from paper to power, uranium demand will not materialize at scale.

Trade Uncertainties: A Global Chess Match

The administration's “friend-shoring” strategy—prioritizing uranium deals with allies—has stumbled against geopolitical realities. While Section 123 agreements aim to boost U.S. nuclear tech exports, 87% of global reactor builds still use non-U.S. designs, particularly from Russia and China. The U.S. cannot unilaterally reshape this landscape.

Moreover, trade disputes linger. The 2016 Section 232 tariffs on foreign uranium were diluted by exemptions for allies, failing to meaningfully redirect imports. Today, the European Union's Critical Raw Materials Act threatens to prioritize EU suppliers over U.S. firms, further complicating supply chain shifts.

Market Skepticism: Investors See Through the Hype

The recent stock surges of companies like Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) and Energy Fuels (EFR) were short-lived. shows that gains evaporated as investors realized policy timelines don't align with trading horizons. The U.S. uranium sector lacks the scale to influence global prices—domestic production accounts for just 1% of global output—and faces steep competition from lower-cost producers.

Analysts also note that recycling surplus plutonium and uranium, a central pillar of the Trump plan, is economically unfeasible at current prices. Reprocessing facilities would require billions in upfront investment, making them a hard sell in a market still skeptical of nuclear's financial viability.

Conclusion: Policy ≠ Price

The Trump administration's nuclear agenda has been a masterclass in ambition, but markets demand more than executive orders. Until the U.S. can address structural oversupply, accelerate project timelines, and navigate global trade headwinds, uranium prices will remain anchored by reality. Investors chasing this policy-driven narrative may find themselves waiting decades for the payoff—or indefinitely, if the structural challenges persist.

For now, the uranium market is a lesson in the limits of policy. As long as Russia's mines keep turning and Vogtle's reactors stay unfinished, prices will stay low. The disconnect between ambition and execution isn't just a U.S. problem—it's a market truth.