In the late 19th century, US cities were dark. Gas lamps flickered in homes and along streets, while coal-fired engines powered industry and steam propelled trains. Then the race to electrify the country began — a fierce competition between Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse that ultimately redefined modern life. Today, we stand on the cusp of a similarly momentous energy transformation, powered by fusion energy. However, this time it is a competition between countries, not innovators, that would make all the difference.
Electrification did not happen overnight, nor was it inevitable. It was made possible by a mix of private innovation, government investment and national ambition. Once the US committed to it, the process became unstoppable. As factories, businesses and homes were electrified, a new era of US dominance dawned.
Likewise, the race to harness fusion energy is not only about scientific discovery; it is about who would dominate the future of energy. If the US leads, fusion power plants could provide abundant, clean and safe energy for generations of Americans, breaking the country’s dependence on fossil fuels and insulating it from global energy shocks. If the US fails to meet this moment, it would find itself buying fusion machines from China, just as it now imports Chinese solar panels, electric-vehicle (EV) batteries and rare-earth minerals.
Fusion — when two light atoms fuse to form a new, heavier atom, releasing a huge amount of energy — moved to the forefront of the global energy transition only recently. For decades, it was viewed as a grand but remote scientific ambition. While researchers made slow but steady progress in replicating the reactions that power the sun and stars, harnessing them to produce limitless, carbon-free power seemed to be a distant dream.
An inflection point came in 2022, when scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility achieved a controlled fusion reaction that produced more energy than it consumed, proving that fusion power is theoretically possible and within reach. Now, researchers are doing more than running experiments; they are laying the groundwork for real power-generation systems.
The race to harness fusion energy would be decided not by physics, but by engineering, infrastructure and industrial capacity. The first country to bring fusion power to the grid, not the first to achieve fusion reactions in a lab, would decide how the world’s next great power source is deployed and dominate a potential multi-trillion-dollar industry, reshaping its own economy in the process.
There was a time when the US set the pace for every major technological revolution. It built the first light bulbs, the first airplanes, the first computers and put a man on the moon, but it is China that is moving aggressively to win the fusion race, investing heavily in research and development, and positioning itself to control the supply chains that would enable large-scale fusion deployment. Chinese laboratories have already set records in sustaining fusion reactions, and state-backed initiatives are seeking to secure control over tritium, one of the fuels that would power future reactors. The US is falling behind.
We have seen this pattern before — first with solar panels, then with batteries and now with EVs. In each case, US innovation laid the foundation for new industries, but it was China that implemented a long-term strategy aimed at cementing its dominance over manufacturing and supply chains. In each case, the US ended up dependent on foreign production.
When it comes to fusion, the stakes are even higher. The ability to generate near-limitless energy would amount to a strategic advantage rivaling the greatest breakthroughs of the twentieth century. Beyond acquiring powerful economic leverage over the US, a China that leads in fusion would gain considerable geopolitical clout. If China also leads in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and advanced manufacturing — as it is positioning itself to do — its influence would be unmatched.
US policymakers are well aware of the risks a dominant China would pose, as reflected in recent national security strategies, and economic and foreign policies. They also know that energy independence is critical to US security; it has been a priority for decades. However, they have yet to recognize the critical importance of leading on fusion. This must change — and fast.
Harnessing fusion energy is not a challenge for the next presidential administration or even the next US Congress. The decisions the US makes in the next five years would determine whether it wins the fusion race — or watches others run away with the prize.
Ylli Bajraktari, a former chief of staff to the US National Security Adviser and a former executive director of the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, is CEO of the Special Competitive Studies Project.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS