President Donald Trump has ordered the U.S. to resume nuclear weapons testing, instructing the Pentagon to begin the process on an equal basis with Russia and China. This significant decision, announced just before his high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, has generated a wide range of reactions and interpretations among political leaders, military personnel, and nuclear policy experts.
The White House did not provide a comprehensive explanation for Trump’s directive, leaving many to speculate on the motivations behind the move. During an interview on Air Force One, Trump stated the U.S. had previously halted nuclear testing and that with other countries conducting similar activities, it was now appropriate for the U.S. to do so as well. This claim, however, has raised concerns among experts, as no country has conducted a nuclear test since North Korea in 2017, and Russia and China’s last known tests date back to the 1990s.
Scholars have suggested that Trump’s decision may be more about reasserting U.S. influence in the nuclear arms race without resorting to full-scale testing. Andrea Stricker, the deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ nonproliferation and biodefense program, noted that Trump could be aiming at low-yield nuclear explosive testing, which would technically breach the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, which prohibits all nuclear explosions. While the U.S., Russia, and China have maintained a moratorium on full-scale testing since the 1990s, the treaty remains ineffective until its ratification, which is yet to be realized.
Stricker further indicated that the U.S. suspects that Russia and China might have resumed low-yield testing over the years, even as they officially adhere to the moratorium. This has led to the conclusion that Trump’s announcement could be a strategic move to match the actions of near-peer adversaries, putting pressure on Moscow and Beijing to adhere to international nuclear norms and potentially paving the way for renewed arms control talks, which have been stagnant since the New START treaty is set to expire in 2026.
Navy Vice Adm. Richard Correll, who was Trump’s nominee for the head of U.S. Strategic Command, commented on the president’s statement during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. While he acknowledged the possibility of the president’s directive being about testing nuclear-powered weapon delivery systems, he emphasized that no official decision had been made and that the Pentagon would be prepared to carry out the directive if confirmed.
Matthew Kroenig, a former nuclear and defense policy advisor at the Pentagon, suggested that Trump’s statement could signal the end of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. is yet to fully ratify. He also pointed out that Russia’s recent missile test provides a context for Trump’s statement, suggesting a potential shift in U.S. nuclear policy.
Meanwhile, Senator Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emphasized the need for the U.S. to respond to nuclear threats from countries like Russia under President Vladimir Putin, stating that Trump’s approach was reasonable and necessary for national security.
On the other hand, Democratic Senator Jack Reed criticized Trump’s policy shift as strategically reckless, warning that resuming nuclear testing could destabilize the global nonproliferation framework and encourage other nuclear aspirants like Pakistan, India, and North Korea to expand their testing regimes.
President Trump’s rationale for the testing directive was grounded in ensuring the optimal functionality of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The vice president, JD Vance, supported this view, stating that the president’s directive was about maintaining the capability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure that it functions as intended at all times, a crucial aspect of American national security.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether Trump’s directive will lead to tangible policy changes or if it was merely a political maneuver ahead of the significant China meeting. However, the implications of this decision are vast, affecting not only the U.S. but also global nuclear dynamics and nonproliferation efforts.