- Escalating Nuclear Risks: The incoming Trump administration faces critical nuclear challenges, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, heightened risks of nuclear escalation, and the urgent need for arms control agreements to prevent an unconstrained global arms race.
- Global Responsibility: Collaborative efforts from Congress, allied nations, and civil society are essential to steer nuclear policy towards de-escalation, arms control, and strengthened nonproliferation frameworks in an increasingly dangerous world.
- Policy Imperatives: Key decisions on U.S. nuclear modernization, maintaining global testing bans, and addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions will shape international stability, requiring careful diplomatic efforts and avoidance of provocative actions.
Global nuclear dangers are growing, placing international peace and security at severe risk. As the second presidential administration of Donald Trump prepares to take office in January, it will face a complex array of nuclear weapons-related challenges. Some of these issues stem from decisions made during Trump’s first term, while others are longstanding problems exacerbated by global instability. All will demand careful navigation, yet many of Trump’s proposed solutions were scarcely articulated during the 2024 campaign cycle, leaving critical questions unanswered.
The war in Ukraine remains a particularly pressing foreign policy challenge. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine continues to destabilize Europe, with the potential for escalation looming large. Trump has expressed a desire to broker a deal to end the conflict, envisioning a ceasefire that might require significant territorial concessions to Russia. However, achieving such a resolution is unlikely to be swift. Any ceasefire agreement will profoundly shape the European security landscape for years to come. As Putin seeks to secure additional territory before entering negotiations, the potential use of more advanced or lethal weaponry, coupled with nuclear coercion, adds further danger. It will be critical for Trump to avoid issuing nuclear threats of his own and instead work with global leaders to unequivocally condemn any suggestion of nuclear first use.
Beyond Ukraine, the world faces the specter of a three-way nuclear arms race among the United States, Russia, and China. All major nuclear-armed states are pouring tens of billions of dollars into modernizing their arsenals. Meanwhile, talks on nuclear arms control have stalled, and the last remaining agreement limiting the Russian and U.S. arsenals is set to expire in February 2026. Without new agreements, an era of unconstrained nuclear competition is on the horizon. Congressional Republicans and advocates of the Project 2025 plan are calling for increased spending on U.S. nuclear modernization, which already carries a ten-year price tag of $756 billion. Such a buildup could reverse decades of progress in reducing nuclear stockpiles, provoke matching investments by Russia and China, and divert critical resources from other defense priorities and human needs.
Trump’s team has yet to present a concrete plan to address these dynamics, and some members of his party may even push for withdrawing from the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. However, Trump has an opportunity to pursue an alternative approach. By seeking an informal agreement with Putin to maintain existing caps on strategic nuclear arsenals, Trump could preserve stability while buying time for formal negotiations. This approach would help forestall an arms race, allowing the U.S. to focus on maintaining its existing nuclear force and laying the groundwork for broader agreements that could include limits on intermediate and tactical nuclear weapons.
Another critical issue is the global moratorium on nuclear testing. Since 1992, no country except North Korea has conducted a nuclear test explosion, a restraint that has significantly contributed to global stability. The United States has maintained its arsenal through a well-funded Stockpile Stewardship Program, rendering explosive testing unnecessary. Nevertheless, proposals from Trump’s former National Security Advisor and elements of the Project 2025 plan suggest a willingness to resume testing in Nevada. Such a move would violate the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undermine nonproliferation efforts, and risk triggering new tests by China, Russia, and North Korea. Resuming nuclear testing would be a disastrous step backward at a time of heightened nuclear danger.
The situation with Iran adds another layer of complexity. Following Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has rebuilt its capacity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material and restricted access to international inspectors. While Iran’s leadership has signaled a willingness to engage in talks that could de-escalate tensions, many within Trump’s circle advocate for a return to the “maximum pressure” sanctions strategy. Such an approach risks pushing Iran closer to nuclear breakout. Military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, while perhaps temporarily effective, would likely provoke a clandestine effort to develop nuclear weapons and lead to greater instability.
Iran’s leadership has warned that any effort to reimpose international sanctions through the UN Security Council could prompt its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, further undermining global nonproliferation norms. Addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions will require a balanced approach that prioritizes diplomatic engagement and realistic action-for-action measures to reduce tensions.
The risk of nuclear war, arms racing, and proliferation has reached levels unseen since the Cold War. In the coming months, the Trump administration’s decisions will be pivotal in determining whether the global nuclear landscape improves or deteriorates. Responsible members of Congress, allied nations, and civil society must play active roles in steering these choices toward a safer and more stable future.
