The White House fiscal 2027 budget blueprint takes a hefty swing at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington, with roughly $400 million in proposed cuts that local leaders say could stall some of the most critical cleanup work on the site. Tri‑Cities officials warn the reductions could pause major projects across Hanford and slow efforts to treat millions of gallons of radioactive tank waste, raising alarms about long‑term costs and environmental risk along the Columbia River and for nearby Tribal communities.
According to The Spokesman-Review, the Department of Energy's Budget in Brief recommends cutting about $394 million from Hanford, a figure Sen. Patty Murray's office says may be closer to $404 million. That includes about $228 million from the Office of River Protection, which manages roughly 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous tank waste, and about $166 million from the Richland operations office that pays for demolitions, groundwater work and basic site infrastructure. Sen. Murray called the topline request "completely unacceptable" and "a slap in the face" to the Tri‑Cities and the cleanup mission.
The Washington State Department of Ecology says those proposed numbers are nowhere near what is needed to keep the cleanup on schedule. In its latest budget analysis, Ecology pegs a compliant funding level for fiscal 2027 at about $6.76 billion. The agency warns that sustained underfunding drives schedule slips, increases long‑term costs and heightens environmental risk for downstream communities and Tribes.
Department of Energy officials are framing the request as a pivot toward near‑term "critical‑path" milestones. The proposal aims to keep low‑activity waste vitrification moving while stepping back on some larger construction efforts for the High‑Level Waste Facility. As outlined on Hanford.gov, the approach would concentrate money where DOE says it can cut near‑term liability, but could leave key multiyear construction steps underfunded unless Congress restores the money.
Project delays that could ripple through the Tri‑Cities
DOE materials and local reporting describe a list of projects that could be pushed to the back burner if the cuts stick. Work that may be postponed includes deactivation of the 324 Building, completion of demolition at the K‑West reactor, replacement of a 1.1‑million‑gallon potable water tank, and electrical and water‑system upgrades that support ongoing cleanup operations across the site. The Spokesman-Review reports that the Office of River Protection budget would fall to a little over $1.9 billion under the request, a cut that could slow the pace of tank retrieval and treatment.
Legal deadlines and the vitrification timeline
DOE has already started processing low‑activity tank waste, a milestone years in the making. At the same time, the agency is under a federal court consent decree that requires it to begin treating high‑level tank waste by 2033. Reduced funding could make that legal deadline harder to hit. As reported by The Seattle Times, some limited construction activities could continue under the current budget proposal, but large‑scale work needed to finish the High‑Level Waste Facility would remain at risk without congressional intervention.
Local leaders vow to fight the cuts
Tri‑Cities officials, Washington's congressional delegation and labor groups say they are gearing up for a fight on Capitol Hill. The regional economy leans heavily on Hanford cleanup contracts that support thousands of jobs and a web of local businesses. Reporting from Annette Cary at the Tri-City Herald and other outlets notes that Sen. Murray and other members of the delegation are already signaling plans to reject the proposed cuts during the appropriations process.
The president's budget is only a starting point. Congress ultimately sets appropriations, and lawmakers in both chambers will sort through competing nuclear cleanup priorities in the months ahead. Briefings from DOE and Ecology make clear that the next appropriations cycle will decide whether Hanford's cleanup keeps its current pace or slips into a longer, more expensive schedule that shifts more risk and more cost onto future generations.
