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
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is