During a call between President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and US President Donald Trump, the US leader reportedly floated an unusual idea—that Kyiv’s leadership consider giving ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to the US for long-term security, according to a White House statement.

The idea came as a surprise to Kyiv. Zelensky appeared to reject the idea on Thursday during a visit to Norway, saying that nuclear plants were state-owned and could not be privatized, although he welcomed economic cooperation with the US side. He added that the issue of US ownership of all of Ukraine’s power plants had not been directly addressed during the call.

Only one of Ukraine’s four nuclear plants — the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, or ZNPP, now under Russian control — had been discussed in the conversation, Zelensky said.

“If the Americans are thinking about how to find a way out of this situation, if they want to take it away from the Russians, invest in its restoration, this is an open question,” he told a news conference during a visit to Oslo.

Whatever the particulars of the two presidents’ Wednesday chat, one thing is clear: Trump is pushing for a big economic stake in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement he is attempting to broker between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump has previously demanded access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, and the White House statement echoed these sentiments, saying that US economic involvement in Ukraine would serve as a bulwark against further Russian aggression, as Moscow would be less likely to target a country where America has economic interests.

As far as the unorthodox shocks the Trump administration has delivered to the world of international diplomacy go, Bellona’s nuclear experts say the idea of the US taking the ZNPP under its wing isn’t the craziest idea.

“It is difficult to make predictions without knowing the details,” said Bellona’s Dmitry Gorchakov. “But any peace agreement that initiates the process of transferring control of the plant away from Russia—whether to the Ukrainians, the US or an international coalition—would be preferable to the current situation and better for Ukraine and would also reduce the nuclear risks associated with the ongoing war.”

Since early in the war, the plant, which runs six Soviet-built VVER style reactors, has been in constant danger of becoming one of the war’s casualties, keeping the international nuclear safety establishment in a perpetual state of worry.  The International Atomic Energy Agency—which maintains rotating groups of observers at the plant—has repeatedly warned Moscow and Kyiv that the plant’s proximity to the war’s front lines risks nuclear catastrophe.

While the ZNPP’s reactors have been in cold shutdown since the plant was taken by Russian forces in March of 2022—thereby limiting the chances of a major nuclear accident should they suffer a direct hit—localized contamination from stores of spent nuclear fuel remain a possibility.

Bellona’s Alexander Nikitin says a potential US takeover of the plant would be better than allowing it to remain a hostage to the biggest miliary conflagration in Europe since World War II.

“The ZNPP is a special object for Ukraine and they are interested in preserving it even if the owner or co-owner is an American company,” he said. “It is better and easier for Ukraine to solve the ZNPP problem in this way than, for example, by military means, since Russia will not simply voluntarily give it up.”

Gorchakov, agreed, telling The Washington Post that Putin “may be willing to hand [the ZNPP] over to the United States, especially since the plant uses a lot of Western and American equipment and systems, and four of the six power units were already converted from Russian fuel to Westinghouse fuel before the war.”

Ukraine’s Soviet-era nuclear power plants have been the backbone of its energy network during the war, supplying up to two-thirds of the country’s electricity. While Moscow has relentlessly attacked Ukraine’s thermal and hydroelectric power plants in an effort to cripple its grid, it has seemingly avoided striking nuclear facilities out of fear of triggering a radiological disaster.

Against that tumult, the Ukrainian government has initiated plans to build more nuclear reactors, arguing that it is the only viable solution to ensuring long-term energy security.

It is here where US involvement could make sense. Shortly before the war, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company, signed a deal with Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear corporation, to build five reactors. After Russia attacked, the number was increased to nine and the two companies agreed to further cooperate to deploy smaller plants in Ukraine.

With Westinghouse already acting as the main fuel source for the ZNPP—which to supplied some 20 percent of Ukraine’s electricity before the war—the US corporation would clearly profit should the plant become a ward of the US.

Gorchakov said “a proposal for US involvement in the management of the plant or even its transfer to US ownership could be part of a broader package of agreements between the US and Russia, potentially covering issues beyond just the situation in Ukraine.”

But Gorchakov also asserted that, whatever comes of the negotiations, the future of the ZNPP has to be decided with the Ukrainians, and not just between the US and Russia.

“The best outcome would be the return of the plant to full Ukrainian control through negotiations. However, there is little hope for such a scenario, as it remains unclear what Putin would gain from such a move, and he is certainly not going to hand over the station to Ukraine for nothing,” he said.

It remains unclear whether Trump discussed the fate of the ZNPP with Putin of Russia in a call on Tuesday.

Bellona will continue to report on developments with the ZNPP.