During a call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine this week, President Trump floated a highly unusual idea: The United States could take control of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
“He said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise,” the White House said in a statement after the call on Wednesday. “American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.”
The idea surprised officials and energy experts in Kyiv. Mr. Zelensky appeared to reject it on Thursday, saying that nuclear plants were state-owned and could not be privatized, although he welcomed economic cooperation with the U.S. side. He added that the issue of U.S. ownership of the plants had not been directly addressed during the call.
Only one of Ukraine’s four nuclear plants — the Zaporizhzhia plant, now under Russian control — had been discussed in the conversation, Mr. Zelensky said.
“If the Americans are thinking about how to find a way out of this situation, if they want to take it away from the Russians, invest in its restoration, this is an open question,” he told a news conference during a visit to Norway.
Beyond the confusion over what had been discussed, one thing was clear: Mr. Trump wants a big economic stake in Ukraine.
Mr. Trump has previously demanded access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, and the White House statement echoed an argument he has already applied to a potential minerals deal, that U.S. economic involvement in Ukraine serves as its best security guarantee, because Russia would be less likely to target a country where America has economic interests.
So what could the United States’ interests be in Ukraine’s nuclear sector, and what challenges might it face?
U.S. Economic Interests
Ukraine’s Soviet-era nuclear power plants have been the backbone of its energy network during the war, supplying up to two-thirds of the country’s electricity. While Moscow has relentlessly attacked Ukraine’s thermal and hydroelectric power plants in an effort to cripple its grid, it has avoided striking nuclear facilities, which could trigger a radiological disaster.
Against that background, the Ukrainian government has initiated plans to build more nuclear reactors, arguing that it is the only viable solution to ensuring long-term energy security.
This is where America’s business interests could come into play.
Shortly before the war, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company, signed a deal with Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear company, to build five reactors. After Russia attacked, the number was increased to nine and the two companies agreed to further cooperate to deploy smaller plants in Ukraine.
For Westinghouse, it was a breakthrough after years of struggling to enter a Ukrainian nuclear market long dominated by Rosatom, the Russian nuclear power giant.
Westinghouse has a special interest in the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Russia captured the plant in March 2022, and it no longer supplies electricity to the Ukrainian grid. But before the war, it used fuel and technology from Westinghouse.
Olga Kosharna, a Ukrainian nuclear safety expert, said that Russia’s capture of the Zaporizhzhia plant had raised concerns at Westinghouse about the potential theft of its intellectual property. In 2023, the U.S. Energy Department warned in a letter to Rosatom that the company could face prosecution under U.S. law if it used Westinghouse technology at the plant.
Andrian Prokip, an energy expert with the Kennan Institute in Washington, said that Westinghouse would “definitely benefit” from a return of the plant to Ukrainian hands, as it would expand its market.
It is unclear whether Mr. Trump discussed the fate of the Zaporizhzhia plant with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a call on Tuesday as he had vowed to.
Westinghouse did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A current Ukrainian official and a former one, both with knowledge of the talks between the United States and Ukraine, also said Kyiv had emphasized to Mr. Trump that if the United States wanted access to Ukrainian minerals, it would require the Zaporizhzhia plant’s power-generating capacity, because mineral extraction and processing is energy intensive.
Possible Challenges
For one thing, all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants are owned by Energoatom, and Ukrainian law prohibits their privatization.
Amending Ukraine’s laws to allow for U.S. ownership would be politically sensitive in a post-Soviet country where many key industries remain state-owned.
Ukraine has engaged in a wave of privatization during the war. But privatizing Energoatom — the state-owned company that generates the most revenue — would likely be a sticking point.
“I expect there would be great resistance to this idea in Ukraine,” said Victoria Voytsitska, a former Ukrainian lawmaker and senior member of Parliament’s energy committee. “From both sides of the political spectrum.”
Mr. Zelensky alluded to the issue in his news conference after his call with Mr. Trump. If Russia returned the Zaporizhzhia plant to Ukraine — a prospect that many in Ukraine deem unlikely — “simply handing over the plant” to the United States would not be possible, Mr. Zelensky said, because “it’s ours and it’s our land.”
Making plants operational again after three years of war would also pose a considerable challenge. Mr. Zelensky cited a period of up to two and a half years to get the degraded Zaporizhzhia plant running again.
Further, although all six Zaporizhzhia reactors have been shut down, they still require energy to power critical safety systems and water to circulate in their cores to prevent a meltdown.
But the power lines providing power to the plant have been cut on several occasions in the war, and the destruction of a nearby dam, possibly at Russia’s direction, has reduced access to cooling water, raising the risks of a nuclear accident.
On Wednesday, Mr. Zelensky described his discussions with Mr. Trump about the plant as “positive steps.” But he added, “I’m not sure we will get a result quickly.”
