On April 30, 2018, President Trump signed a Presidential Determination authorizing the United States to proceed with a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Kingdom. The determination, formally documented as 2018-09885, invoked the president's statutory authority to approve international nuclear energy agreements and permitted the executive branch to implement technology sharing and collaborative arrangements on civilian nuclear projects between the two nations. This action represented a straightforward exercise of executive authority in foreign policy and scientific cooperation, operating within established legal frameworks for nuclear agreements that have existed across multiple administrations.

The agreement directly affects nuclear energy companies, research institutions, and government agencies in both countries seeking to collaborate on civilian nuclear projects. American nuclear technology firms gain expanded market access to the British nuclear sector, while research institutions in both nations can pursue joint initiatives in nuclear science and engineering. The determination also impacts the Department of Energy, State Department, and related federal agencies tasked with implementing regulatory oversight and ensuring compliance with nuclear non-proliferation standards during the cooperation process.

Examined against the broader trajectory of Trump administration science policy, this nuclear cooperation agreement stands apart from subsequent actions that have constrained scientific institutions and advisory processes. Unlike the later dissolution of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in January 2025 or the removal of National Science Board members, this 2018 determination actually facilitated international scientific engagement. However, the action exists alongside a pattern of selective science policy implementation—advancing nuclear cooperation while later constraining scientific communication, as evidenced by the CDC's cancellation of COVID vaccine efficacy studies in 2026. This selective approach suggests the administration prioritized science policy aligned with geopolitical objectives while simultaneously limiting transparency in other scientific domains.

No significant legal challenges have been documented regarding this determination. Congressional oversight of nuclear agreements typically operates through existing statutory review procedures rather than through litigation. Reversing this action would require either a subsequent presidential determination or negotiations to suspend the bilateral agreement, though such reversal would be unlikely absent significant diplomatic circumstances.