by Zoe Curtaz
With just 89 seconds to midnight, the newly reinstated Trump administration poses a significant liability to addressing urgent global risks – including the ever-dangerous nuclear crisis. In his first term, Trump revealed his willingness to ignore international standards by pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty and the Iran Nuclear Deal, both essential for maintaining transparency and nonproliferation efforts. Though these policy shifts faced widespread condemnation from both domestic and international actors, the U.S. has once again been confronted with a chilling reality: Donald Trump holds the sole authority to launch the nation’s nuclear weapons.
As we venture into the early stages of Trump’s second term, it is wise to consider what is in store for the nuclear landscape over the next four years. Awareness is our weapon, and having a well-informed priority list will be undeniably important as we address this existential threat.
What exactly is at risk?
1. Expiration of the New START Treaty
The New START Treaty, which limits the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the U.S. and Russia, is set to expire in February 2026. In 2011, the world’s two leading nuclear stockpilers agreed to restrict the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 – a level that has been maintained since the first inspection in 2018. If the treaty is not renewed, it could spur an arms race unseen since the Cold War era. Trump’s 2024 campaign platform promised to “strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world.” If given an unchecked capacity to produce more nuclear weapons, there stands a strong chance that Trump would capitalize on the opportunity to create an even more sizable and lethal nuclear arsenal for the U.S.
2. Saudi Arabia’s Quest for Domestic Uranium Enrichment
In Saudi Arabia, domestic uranium enrichment is still up in the air. For some years now, Saudi Arabia has been in pursuit of a 123 Agreement with the U.S., not unlike the ones given to India and Japan. Their purposes are threefold: an agreement would allow Saudi Arabia to move toward using nuclear power as a main energy source, reduce dependency on foreign fuel suppliers, and provide protection from the looming Iranian nuclear threat. A 123 Agreement does not require governments to refrain from domestically enriching uranium; however, allowing Saudi Arabia to do so poses a dire threat to the Middle East by amplifying the capacity to produce an atomic bomb. In the past, U.S. policy concerning Saudi Arabian nuclear use “has committed to renounce uranium enrichment and reprocessing on its territory,” in addition to the typical regulations and inspections required from a 123 agreement. In a second Trump term, this future is not as certain. Saudi Arabia has historically been more inclined to negotiate with Republicans, and there could be an attempt to push through legislation in the next two years before the 2026 midterm elections may disrupt the Republican-led Congress.
3. Activist Movements Threatened
At the height of the Freeze Movement in the 1970s and 1980s, Reagan remained staunchly opposed to its goals, viewing a potential freeze as a fatal blow against the nation’s defense program. Reagan claimed that plenty of “evidence” existed that revealed that foreign agents were responsible for instigating the freeze movement, though no evidence was ever provided. Nevertheless, tireless efforts of the Freeze Movement resulted in freeze activism taking hold in 75 percent of the country’s congressional districts by 1982. An estimated one million people marched in New York’s Central Park to protest the cause. Accordingly, Reagan’s tone toward disarmament took a sharp turn as he began to proclaim repeatedly that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” In 1985, the rise of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev lent itself to another victory within the disarmament movement occurred as doors opened for significant arms control between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
The arrival of a second Trump term demands the same intensity from the nuclear disarmament movement because of the threat he poses to activist efforts. During his second week in office, Trump issued an executive order aimed at criminalizing and threatening the deportation of individuals, particularly students, protesting the genocide in Gaza. This blatant attack on free speech raises concerns for the nuclear disarmament movement. Calls for disarmament must persist, as nuclear weapons continue to represent an existential threat in the post-Cold War era. The same efforts that garnered presidential support for the Freeze Movement four decades ago could potentially save us all from a nuclear catastrophe today.
—
Zoe Curtaz is a junior at Lesley University and an intern at Massachusetts Peace Action