When President Trump issued an Executive Order in May 2025 to restore “Gold Standard Science” across all federal agencies, it was a hopeful moment for many Americans who believe policy should be grounded in integrity, transparency, and data. But that same week, another Executive Order encouraged the development of new nuclear power plants — specifically naming uranium, and saying nothing about thorium.

This omission isn’t just strange. It’s scientifically indefensible.

Thorium-based reactors, especially molten salt designs, offer incredible benefits: no meltdown risk, far less long-term waste, zero weapons-grade byproducts, and better environmental performance. These advantages are well documented in decades of peer-reviewed research, including work from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and current international reactor projects.

So why are we still committed to uranium? The answer is historical bias. Uranium reactors were favored during the Cold War because they could produce materials for nuclear weapons — not because they were the safest or most sustainable option for civilian energy.

I’ve written a white paper that outlines the science, the history, and the policy mechanisms available to correct this course. It’s called “Thorium Reactors and the Gold Standard Science Mandate” — and it challenges both policymakers and citizens to look more deeply at the path we’re on.

You can read or download the full paper here:
👉 Thorium Reactors and the Gold Standard Science Mandate

Let’s hold our energy policy to the same standard we now demand of our science — a gold standard.

‍