“First, get your facts straight. Then you can distort them as much as you want.” – Mark Twain
As a critical component of advancing the nuclear power juggernaut on an ill-informed public, for several years now pro-nuclear cheerleaders have been working feverishly to get state legislatures to repeal state-mandated moratoria on new nuclear plant construction.
The Biden and now Trump Administrations both have lavished tens-of-billions of dollars on promoting the nuclear fetish. Both also turned the Dept. of Energy into a pro bono advertising arm for the nuclear industry, which conducted numerous promo tours, photo ops and produced slick literature and advertisements asserting the “need” for more nuclear power.
But this promotional effort was not confined to mere government operations. The mainstream media was heavily incorporated into the effort to once again (our third “Nuclear Renaissance” this century) try to sell nuclear power to the public, by any rationalization necessary (whether truthful or not): a predicted – if as yet unsubstantiated — energy shortage from data centers; a “nuclear power gap” with China and other international sellers; minimization of energy efficiency, renewables and storage; promises of reactors that will “eat” radioactive wastes, be meltdown-proof, are fully portable and mass-produced, be “cheap” to build, and provide “cheap” electricity – just to name a few of the promo points.
While all these glittering baubles were dazzling the public and their legislators, virtually no serous mention let alone detailed discussion of the numerous and universally unstated liabilities of nuclear power ever appear – proving that lies of omission can often be worse than lies of commission.
A prime example of this media propaganda campaign was a recent Washington Post editorial (Jan. 15, 2026)., praising Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and the state legislature for finally “seeing the nuclear light” by repealing Illinois’ 39-year old nuclear construction moratorium. As an Illinois nuclear power watchdog organization for 45 years, we wrote a rebuttal op-ed to correct the numerous “facts” of commission and omission in the WaPo’s op-ed on “the ‘facts’ about nuclear energy” here in Illinois – which of course they did not publish.
First, nuclear plant construction moratoria are not “bans.” The enormously significant difference is that construction is conditionally prohibited until the dangerous high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) produced by nuclear plants are given an environmentally responsible final and permanent place for disposal. The federal government was supposed to have provided a facility by 1997. It failed to do so then, and continues to fail to this day. Making more waste absent responsible permanent disposal methods is societally unacceptable and environmentally dangerous – a fact government and media nuclear cheerleaders routinely ignore. We still have no permanent disposal methodology or facility for the ~100,000 tons of HLRW already produced, which grows annually in the U.S. by nearly 2,000 tons. Building new reactors adding even more waste absent an operational disposal facility is – criminal.
Concerns about radioactive waste disposal are not trivial. A study conducted by a team of experts which included former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairwoman Alison Macfarlane determined that, depending on the design, the currently mythical “small modular reactors” (SMRs) would produce 2 to 30 times as much radioactive waste per unit of energy delivered compared to today’s “old fashioned” reactors.
Second, Illinois Governor Pritzker’s stated concerns about a lack of safety are now borne out as totally justified by President Trump’s recent Executive Orders which cut staff at the NRC while simultaneously calling for a quadrupling of nuclear capacity; shift new reactor licensing emphasis to speed over safety; allow for higher levels of “allowable” radiation exposure for the public; and allow DOGE personnel to overrule some NRC licensing decisions. Recently, the President has suggested that private entities using nuclear power for data centers could get operating licenses within three weeks – as opposed to the years of thorough engineering review it now takes. What could possibly go wrong?
Pritzker’s concerns about new large reactor costs are borne out by the most recent Lazard’s analysis (June 2025) of levelized costs, indicating new reactors as more expensive than new solar, on- and off-shore wind, and energy storage. Projected costs for mythical SMRs vary wildly, but seem to be following this same trend.
Polling reports of increased public support should not come as a surprise. Like all public opinion, it is driven by money spent and media saturation achieved. Both the Biden Administration and now the Trump junta over the past five years have used the DOE’s bully-pulpit to lavish tens of millions of dollars into promotional nuclear power propaganda directed at the public, and bestowed huge grants to pro-nuclear projects. Coupled with current panic-peddling over data center electrical demand and rising costs for electricity, and the Trump Administration’s ill-informed and pathologic policies towards viable renewable energy alternatives, they have driven a poorly informed, if not indoctrinated public to the dubious conclusion that new nuclear is a “necessity.”
Finally, not surprisingly the WaPo op-ed joins government and industry nuclear cheerleaders, in being totally silent about the inconvenient nuclear power side effects like nuclear security, environmental justice, just transitions for reactor communities, proliferation impacts, and the fact that wind and solar combined (and more, including storage) produce more electricity both in the U.S. and worldwide than all operating nuclear power reactors – cheaper, and without radioactive waste and nuclear safety/security concerns.
Ironically, it was a FoxNews analyst who once quipped that while facts may change opinions, opinions will NEVER change the facts. Deliberately cherry picking and omitting inconvenient facts is not journalism, or responsible editorializing – it’s propaganda. It should be treated as such by the public, and with the healthy skepticism it deserves.
— 914 words —
