The Trump administration quietly revised nuclear safety regulations in January, a move that has sparked concern among scientists and renewed debate over the health risks associated with nuclear power, according to documents obtained by NPR and analysis of recent studies.
The regulatory changes, finalized last month, arrive as the administration seeks to promote the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), a new generation of nuclear technology. Officials have indicated the revisions are intended to streamline the approval process for these reactors, which are seen by some as a key component of a carbon-free energy future. During a recorded meeting last June, Department of Energy attorney Seth Cohen told companies developing SMRs that cutting red tape was a priority, according to NPR’s reporting.
However, critics argue the changes were implemented with insufficient public scrutiny and could compromise safety standards. Scientists point to a recent Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study, published in December 2025, which found a statistically significant association between residential proximity to nuclear power plants in Massachusetts and increased cancer incidence. The study, which controlled for factors like air pollution and socioeconomic status, estimated that roughly 3.3% of cancer cases in the state—approximately 20,600 cases—could be attributed to living near a nuclear facility, with risk declining sharply beyond 30 kilometers.
The findings from Harvard directly challenge assertions of complete safety surrounding nuclear energy. “Despite widespread—and potentially expanding—reliance on nuclear power in the U.S., epidemiologic research investigating the health impacts of NPPs remains limited,” the Harvard study stated.
The administration’s push for nuclear energy and loosening of regulations echoes a similar effort during Trump’s first term, when the administration sought to weaken radiation exposure standards. In 2019, scientists decried what they described as a “rush to loosen radiation exposure standards,” warning that the move could lead to more cancer cases, as reported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Despite these concerns, some experts maintain that the risks associated with nuclear power are minimal, particularly when compared to the dangers of climate change. A recent analysis published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists argues against the need for a new national cancer study focused on communities near nuclear reactors, citing the extensive data already collected through the Energy Department’s Million Person Study, which examined the health of US nuclear workers and atomic veterans exposed to low-dose radiation. The analysis contends that this study provides a far greater statistical power than any community-based research could achieve.
The debate over nuclear safety is further complicated by the lack of consensus on the health effects of low-dose radiation. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article asserts that the “scientific consensus” is that routine reactor emissions pose no meaningful health risk. However, the Harvard study suggests otherwise, indicating a dose-response relationship between proximity to nuclear facilities and cancer risk.
As of February 20, 2026, the Department of Energy has not responded to requests for comment on the Harvard study or the concerns raised by scientists regarding the revised nuclear safety regulations. The agency is still scheduled to commence construction and testing of at least three small modular reactors by July 4th, as initially announced last summer.
