South Korea, meanwhile, has long wanted to work with the U.S. on nuclear power, but a legal barrier has stood in the way.
In 2022, Westinghouse accused South Korea’s APR-1400, a 1,400-megawatt pressurized-water reactor, of relying on patented technology derived from the American company’s subsidiary without permission. The threat of a lawsuit kept any project plans at bay even though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the APR-1400 for use in the U.S. in 2019.
The legal dispute has since simmered down. In January 2025, Westinghouse announced a global settlement of the intellectual property dispute with South Korean state nuclear company Korea Electric Power Corp., or Kepco, which owns the developer Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power. The terms of the agreement aren’t public, but the business press in Seoul has reported that the deal was hugely unpopular in South Korea and prohibits the country from bidding on nuclear power projects in North America and Europe. Last August, the Yonhap News Agency reported that Kepco was considering creating a joint venture with Westinghouse to work on projects.
Three industry sources familiar with the settlement confirmed that the agreement bars Kepco from developing an APR-1400 in the U.S. While debate has raged in Seoul over the territorial boundaries drawn into the deal, it’s unclear whether the Trump administration is prepared to press Westinghouse to reopen discussions. Under the settlement, Kepco could partner with Westinghouse to build AP1000s in the U.S. But two sources with direct knowledge of the talks said high-ranking DOE officials met with top Korean diplomats last week about building an APR-1400 in the U.S.
Neither Kepco nor the South Korean Embassy in Washington, D.C., responded to requests for comment. But South Korea’s Industry Minister, Kim Jung-kwan, confirmed in a parliamentary session Monday that the government is in talks with the U.S. to invest in an American nuclear power project as part of the $350 billion deal Seoul brokered with the Trump administration to reduce tariffs.
“We are in serious discussions regarding nuclear power,” Kim said in response to a lawmaker’s question about potential Korean nuclear investments in the U.S., according to Reuters.
A test of Trump’s nuclear ambitions
To Nick Touran, a veteran nuclear engineer who spent 15 years at Bill Gates’ next-generation reactor company, TerraPower, working with South Korea is “the best way to get big reactors done for cheap.” The East Asian nation emerged in recent years as the democratic world’s leading nuclear developer after Kepco completed work on the United Arab Emirates’ debut atomic power station, Barakah, relatively on time and on budget.
“They can deliver megaprojects, as they just demonstrated in the UAE,” said Touran, who now works as an independent industry consultant and runs the website What Is Nuclear. “For years I have said that if we could do anything in the U.S., we should just hire the Koreans to build a few APR-1400s and train the American construction managers and craft labor in their process.”
The U.S. and Korean nuclear industries have long been entwined.
In the 1980s, Combustion Engineering licensed its underlying technology to Kepco and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power for the pressurized-water reactor that ultimately became the APR-1400. But the American company granted the license for use only in South Korea. When Kepco started work on the Barakah in Abu Dhabi, the company needed permission from the U.S. to transfer American atomic power technology. Westinghouse, which bought Combustion Engineering in 2000, also stepped in to demand licensing fees for any APR-1400s sold outside South Korea.
“We taught the Koreans how to do nuclear when we sold them Combustion Engineering technology. Korea maintained the knowledge, made it better, perfected it. Now, we want it back. So let’s pull ourselves out of the dark ages by bringing that Korean construction management, design expertise, and supply chain back,” Touran said. “Let’s forget about geopolitics — forget about Westinghouse’s cartel — and get the Koreans to come help America.”
Likewise, he said, the ABWR is a reliable choice.
The U.S. could ultimately provide at least some of the cost overrun insurance the industry is demanding. Last month, Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, and Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, introduced a bill that would cover up to $3.6 billion in budget busters.
At this point, however, the U.S. has no large reactor projects underway, and industry and government efforts remain largely focused on small modular reactors and microreactors that have yet to be proven out. Dozens of next-generation reactor designs are winding their way through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission process, and 10 designs are currently undergoing testing in a DOE pilot program with a July 4 deadline for at least three projects to split atoms for the first time.
While Touran said that “competition is inherently good and American,” it’s also true that the divided efforts in the U.S. have kept costs high for domestic nuclear power plant construction. Zeroing in on the AP1000 “would help us learn the lesson of serialization faster by focusing on one,” he said.
Jigar Shah, the former head of the DOE’s Loan Programs Office during the Biden administration, agreed that the department needs to narrow its selection of reactors, not widen it.
“If the Trump administration is serious about making a lasting impact on nuclear, it needs to be winnowing down the list of companies that are racing to the finish line,” Shah said. “At some point, the Trump administration can’t say, ‘We’re The Cheesecake Factory, and we have 64 pages of menu items.’ At some point, you have to say, ‘We’re a tasting menu, and here’s what you have to choose from.’”