The Risk of Nuclear War Under President Trump

(Risk of Nuclear War)- The presidency of Donald Trump brought renewed global concerns about the risk of nuclear conflict. His administration’s approach to international diplomacy, marked by unpredictable rhetoric and heightened tensions with adversarial nations, raised alarm among policymakers and experts. From escalating confrontations with North Korea to withdrawing from key arms control agreements, Trump’s nuclear policy was often characterized by a mix of aggressive posturing and unconventional negotiations. This article examines the key factors that contributed to nuclear risk during his tenure and the broader implications for global security.

the risk of nuclear war during President Trump's administration, featuring a nuclear explosion in the background with a tense political atmosphere

Trump’s Approach to Nuclear Policy

1.Unpredictable Diplomacy and Rhetoric

One of the defining aspects of Trump’s nuclear policy was his unconventional and often unpredictable approach to diplomacy. Unlike previous administrations, which typically relied on carefully calibrated language and traditional diplomatic channels, Trump frequently used bold rhetoric, social media, and high-profile summits to engage with both allies and adversaries on nuclear issues.

Strong Language and Brinkmanship

Trump’s communication style was marked by stark threats and provocative language, especially in dealings with North Korea. In 2017, tensions escalated as he exchanged heated words with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, famously warning of “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if Pyongyang continued its nuclear provocations. This aggressive stance raised fears of miscalculations and potential conflict but also set the stage for a dramatic shift in engagement.

Direct Engagement with Adversaries

Despite his aggressive rhetoric, Trump pursued unprecedented diplomatic moves, including historic summits with Kim Jong-un. These meetings, held in Singapore (2018) and Hanoi (2019), marked the first time a sitting U.S. president met with a North Korean leader. While these engagements did not result in a concrete denuclearization deal, they represented a stark departure from previous administrations’ strategies and emphasized Trump’s preference for high-profile, personal diplomacy over traditional multilateral negotiations.

Strained Relations with Allies

Trump’s unpredictable approach also impacted U.S. allies, particularly in the realm of nuclear security. His criticism of NATO and suggestions that certain U.S. allies should consider developing their own nuclear weapons created uncertainty about America’s commitment to collective defense. Additionally, his decision to withdraw from key arms control agreements, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and his reluctance to extend the New START Treaty without major revisions, added to concerns about strategic stability.

Mixed Results and Lasting Impact

Trump’s nuclear diplomacy and rhetoric produced mixed results. While he managed to bring unprecedented attention to nuclear negotiations with North Korea, substantive progress on denuclearization remained elusive. His unpredictable style also led to heightened tensions with Iran after withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. However, his approach to deterrence and modernization of U.S. nuclear forces signaled a commitment to maintaining American military superiority, albeit through a more confrontational style.

Ultimately, Trump’s nuclear diplomacy was characterized by high-risk, high-reward strategies that deviated from traditional norms, leaving a complex and debated legacy in global nuclear security.

2.The “Fire and Fury” Exchange with North Korea

One of the most dramatic and controversial moments of Trump’s presidency in terms of nuclear policy was the escalating war of words between the United States and North Korea in 2017. This period saw heightened tensions, nuclear threats, and an unprecedented diplomatic turnaround.

Escalating Tensions and Missile Tests

By the time Trump took office in January 2017, North Korea had already been advancing its nuclear weapons program for years. However, tensions escalated significantly after Pyongyang conducted a series of missile tests that demonstrated increasing capabilities, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could potentially reach the U.S. mainland. These provocations alarmed both the U.S. and its allies, leading to a more aggressive response from the Trump administration.

Trump’s “Fire and Fury” Threat

On August 8, 2017, Trump issued one of his most memorable foreign policy statements, warning North Korea that it would face “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it continued to threaten the U.S. This unprecedented rhetoric shocked the international community, as no previous U.S. president had used such stark and overtly threatening language regarding nuclear conflict. Many feared that such words could provoke North Korea into even more aggressive actions, potentially leading to military confrontation.

North Korea’s response was swift. Just hours after Trump’s remarks, Pyongyang announced that it was considering launching missiles toward Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific. The exchange of threats created an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty, raising concerns that the crisis could spiral into an actual military conflict.

Brinkmanship and a Shift Toward Diplomacy

Despite the fiery rhetoric, Trump’s approach to North Korea was ultimately a combination of pressure and diplomacy. In 2018, tensions began to ease as both sides shifted toward engagement. Trump’s hardline stance, combined with increased sanctions and international pressure, may have played a role in bringing North Korea to the negotiating table.

The “fire and fury” exchange culminated in a historic, unexpected diplomatic breakthrough. In June 2018, Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader when he held a summit with Kim Jong-un in Singapore. While the meeting produced no concrete agreements on denuclearization, it marked a significant departure from decades of hostility and isolation between the two nations.

Lasting Impact and Controversy

The “fire and fury” moment remains one of the most debated aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. Critics argue that his rhetoric risked escalating the situation into a catastrophic conflict and undermined traditional diplomatic efforts. Supporters, however, contend that Trump’s unpredictability and aggressive stance forced North Korea into dialogue, breaking the cycle of stalled negotiations seen under previous administrations.

Despite the initial diplomatic progress, talks eventually stalled, and North Korea resumed missile testing in the following years. The ultimate impact of Trump’s approach remains uncertain, but the “fire and fury” exchange highlighted both the risks and potential benefits of his unconventional and highly personalized style of nuclear diplomacy.

3.The “Fire and Fury” Exchange with North Korea: Military Strength and Nuclear Modernization

The “fire and fury” exchange between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in 2017 was not just about rhetoric—it underscored Trump’s broader strategy of projecting American military dominance and advancing nuclear modernization. While Trump’s unconventional style was marked by fiery threats, his administration also took concrete steps to enhance U.S. nuclear capabilities, reinforcing the idea that military strength was central to his approach to deterrence and diplomacy.

Bolstering U.S. Nuclear Strength Amid North Korean Threats

As North Korea ramped up its missile and nuclear testing in 2017, Trump’s administration responded by emphasizing U.S. military superiority. The president frequently highlighted America’s nuclear arsenal as a key deterrent against Pyongyang, warning that any attack would be met with overwhelming force. His “fire and fury” threat was not just bluster—it was a deliberate signal that the U.S. was prepared to leverage its advanced military capabilities if necessary.

During this period, Trump also increased military pressure on North Korea through:

Enhanced military exercises with South Korea, showcasing U.S. nuclear-capable bombers and strategic assets.
Deploying additional missile defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in South Korea, to counter potential attacks.
Surging naval presence in the region, including aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, as a show of force.

Nuclear Modernization: Strengthening U.S. Deterrence

Beyond responding to North Korea, Trump used the crisis to justify his broader push for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In 2018, his administration released the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which called for:

Expanding low-yield nuclear options, including new submarine-launched warheads, to provide greater flexibility in deterrence.
Upgrading nuclear delivery systems, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), bombers, and submarines, to ensure technological superiority.
Investing in missile defense capabilities, improving the U.S. ability to intercept potential nuclear attacks.

Trump frequently boasted about these initiatives, stating in 2018:
“We have massively rebuilt and improved our nuclear arsenal. It is now stronger and more powerful than ever before.”

His emphasis on nuclear modernization aligned with his belief that military strength was essential to effective diplomacy, particularly when dealing with adversaries like North Korea.

Impact on U.S.-North Korea Relations

Trump’s strategy of combining aggressive rhetoric with military enhancements had mixed results:

On one hand, the threat of overwhelming U.S. force may have pressured North Korea into initial diplomatic engagements, leading to historic summits between Trump and Kim Jong-un.
On the other hand, despite the shift from threats to diplomacy, North Korea did not halt its nuclear program and resumed testing after talks stalled.

Moreover, Trump’s emphasis on nuclear strength raised concerns among U.S. allies and arms control advocates, particularly regarding the potential for a new global arms race. His withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and reluctance to extend the New START Treaty signaled a shift away from traditional arms control agreements in favor of expanding U.S. capabilities.

Conclusion: The Legacy of “Fire and Fury” in Nuclear Strategy

The “fire and fury” episode was more than just a war of words—it was a reflection of Trump’s broader nuclear strategy, which prioritized strength, modernization, and deterrence over traditional diplomatic restraint. While his approach temporarily brought North Korea to the negotiating table, it also underscored the risks of escalating tensions through aggressive rhetoric and military posturing.

Ultimately, Trump’s handling of the crisis reinforced the central role of nuclear dominance in his foreign policy, setting the stage for a continued focus on U.S. military modernization in the years that followed.

3.The “Fire and Fury” Exchange with North Korea: Military Strength and Nuclear Modernization

Bolstering U.S. Nuclear Strength Amid North Korean Threats

During this period, Trump also increased military pressure on North Korea through:

Enhanced military exercises with South Korea, showcasing U.S. nuclear-capable bombers and strategic assets.
Deploying additional missile defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in South Korea, to counter potential attacks.
Surging naval presence in the region, including aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, as a show of force.

Nuclear Modernization: Strengthening U.S. Deterrence

Expanding low-yield nuclear options, including new submarine-launched warheads, to provide greater flexibility in deterrence.
Upgrading nuclear delivery systems, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), bombers, and submarines, to ensure technological superiority.
Investing in missile defense capabilities, improving the U.S. ability to intercept potential nuclear attacks.

Trump frequently boasted about these initiatives, stating in 2018:
“We have massively rebuilt and improved our nuclear arsenal. It is now stronger and more powerful than ever before.”

His emphasis on nuclear modernization aligned with his belief that military strength was essential to effective diplomacy, particularly when dealing with adversaries like North Korea.

Impact on U.S.-North Korea Relations

Trump’s strategy of combining aggressive rhetoric with military enhancements had mixed results:

On one hand, the threat of overwhelming U.S. force may have pressured North Korea into initial diplomatic engagements, leading to historic summits between Trump and Kim Jong-un.
On the other hand, despite the shift from threats to diplomacy, North Korea did not halt its nuclear program and resumed testing after talks stalled.

Conclusion: The Legacy of “Fire and Fury” in Nuclear Strategy

Withdrawal from Arms Control Agreements

1.Pulling Out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

One of the most significant shifts in U.S. arms control policy under President Trump was the withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. This landmark Cold War-era agreement, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, had played a crucial role in reducing tensions between the United States and Russia by eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons.

Background and Significance of the INF Treaty

The INF Treaty was a historic arms control agreement that banned ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,400 miles). This treaty led to the destruction of nearly 2,700 missiles and was seen as a cornerstone of European security, preventing an arms race in intermediate-range nuclear weapons.

For decades, the treaty helped maintain strategic stability, particularly in Europe, where such weapons had been a major point of tension during the Cold War. By prohibiting these missiles, the INF Treaty reduced the risk of short-notice nuclear strikes, which could destabilize global security.

Trump’s Decision to Withdraw

The Trump administration announced in October 2018 that the U.S. would withdraw from the INF Treaty, citing longstanding Russian violations as the primary reason. Specifically, the U.S. accused Russia of developing and deploying the 9M729 missile (NATO designation: SSC-8), which allegedly exceeded the treaty’s range limits.

Trump justified the withdrawal by arguing that:

Russia had been violating the treaty for years without facing consequences, making the agreement ineffective.
China was not bound by the treaty, allowing it to develop and deploy intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific, putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage.
The treaty limited U.S. military flexibility, particularly in countering growing threats from adversaries.

On February 1, 2019, the U.S. formally suspended its participation in the treaty, and six months later, on August 2, 2019, the withdrawal became official.

Implications of the Withdrawal

The U.S. exit from the INF Treaty had far-reaching consequences for global security:

End of a Key Arms Control Agreement – The treaty’s collapse removed restrictions on the deployment of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles, raising concerns about a new arms race.
Increased U.S.-Russia Tensions – Russia responded by suspending its own obligations under the treaty and developing new missile systems.
Potential Arms Race in Europe and Asia – Without INF restrictions, both the U.S. and Russia were free to develop and deploy new intermediate-range weapons, potentially destabilizing regions like Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
Strategic Shift Toward China – The Trump administration viewed the treaty as outdated because it did not include China, which had built a large arsenal of intermediate-range missiles. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. began exploring missile deployments in Asia to counter Chinese military expansion.

Development of New U.S. Missile Capabilities

Following the withdrawal, the U.S. quickly tested a new ground-launched cruise missile in August 2019, which would have been banned under the INF Treaty. The Pentagon also began developing a range of new missile systems, arguing that the U.S. needed greater flexibility to counter emerging threats from Russia and China.

Trump’s decision to leave the INF Treaty reflected his administration’s broader stance on arms control: a willingness to abandon agreements it viewed as outdated or unfairly restrictive. The withdrawal marked a major turning point in global nuclear strategy, raising fears of a return to Cold War-style competition while also giving the U.S. greater strategic flexibility.

2.The U.S. Exit from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

One of the most controversial foreign policy decisions of the Trump administration was the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal—in May 2018. This decision marked a significant departure from diplomatic efforts aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program and had wide-ranging consequences for global security, U.S. relations with allies, and stability in the Middle East.

What Was the JCPOA?

The JCPOA was a landmark agreement signed in 2015 between Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union. Under the deal:

Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, including restrictions on uranium enrichment and reductions in its stockpile of enriched uranium.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted regular access to Iranian nuclear sites to verify compliance.
In exchange, Iran received relief from international economic sanctions, which had crippled its economy.

The deal was intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while allowing for peaceful nuclear energy use. However, it was highly controversial, with critics arguing it did not permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities and failed to address Iran’s regional military activities and missile programs.

Trump’s Decision to Withdraw

From the beginning of his presidency, Trump was a vocal critic of the JCPOA, calling it “the worst deal ever” and arguing that it was too lenient on Iran. He outlined several reasons for pulling out of the agreement:

Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program – The JCPOA did not address Iran’s development of ballistic missiles, which could be used to deliver nuclear warheads.
Sunset Provisions – Several key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities were set to expire within 10 to 15 years, leading to concerns that Iran could resume its program in the future.
Regional Destabilization – The deal did not curb Iran’s support for militant groups in the Middle East, including Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria.
Alleged Violations and Non-Transparency – The Trump administration accused Iran of cheating or concealing aspects of its nuclear activities, despite IAEA reports confirming Iranian compliance at the time.

On May 8, 2018, Trump officially withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA and reinstated harsh economic sanctions on Iran under a policy of “maximum pressure.”

Consequences of the U.S. Withdrawal

Increased Tensions with Iran

Iran responded by gradually rolling back its commitments under the deal, resuming higher levels of uranium enrichment and reducing cooperation with international inspectors.
A series of military confrontations followed, including attacks on oil tankers, drone strikes, and the U.S. killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, further escalating hostilities.

Strained Relations with U.S. Allies

European signatories (UK, France, Germany) opposed the withdrawal, arguing that the JCPOA was the best mechanism for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The U.S. imposed secondary sanctions on foreign companies doing business with Iran, angering allies who sought to keep the deal alive through economic initiatives like the INSTEX payment system.

Iran’s Nuclear Program Expanded

After the U.S. exit, Iran accelerated its nuclear activities, including enriching uranium beyond JCPOA limits, reducing IAEA monitoring, and advancing nuclear research.
By 2021, Iran had enriched uranium to 60% purity, much closer to weapons-grade levels (90%).

Failed Negotiation Efforts

Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign sought to force Iran into a tougher renegotiated deal, but Iran refused.
The U.S. withdrawal weakened American diplomatic leverage, making future negotiations more difficult.

Conclusion: A Shift Away from Diplomacy

Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA marked a fundamental shift in U.S. nonproliferation strategy—from diplomatic engagement to economic and military pressure. While the move was praised by critics of the deal, it also led to:

A more aggressive Iranian nuclear program.
Greater instability in the Middle East.
Tensions between the U.S. and European allies.

Ultimately, the exit from the JCPOA highlighted the Trump administration’s broader skepticism toward multilateral agreements and a preference for unilateral pressure tactics over diplomacy in nuclear policy.

3.Consequences for International Nonproliferation Efforts

The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) had significant and far-reaching consequences for international nonproliferation efforts, reshaping the global landscape of arms control, nuclear diplomacy, and the credibility of multilateral agreements. While the move was intended to address concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional behavior, it raised serious challenges for the broader nonproliferation regime.

Erosion of Trust in Multilateral Agreements

One of the most significant impacts of the U.S. exit was the erosion of trust in the credibility of multilateral agreements. The JCPOA was endorsed by not only the U.S. but also other major powers (the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union), all of whom believed the deal was a viable framework for containing Iran’s nuclear program.

By unilaterally withdrawing from the deal, the U.S. undermined the faith in international arms control agreements, signaling to other nations that the U.S. might pull out of future treaties or agreements when it no longer serves its interests. This act raised concerns about the reliability of any future agreements under U.S. leadership, making it harder to secure global cooperation on nonproliferation initiatives. Countries that had adhered to the deal, like the European powers, felt betrayed and were put in a difficult position, trying to salvage the agreement without U.S. participation.

Undermining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Framework

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been the cornerstone of global nuclear security since 1970, hinges on the commitment of nuclear and non-nuclear states to work together on nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful nuclear cooperation.

Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA undermined the NPT framework in several ways:

Destabilizing the Nonproliferation Regime – The JCPOA was seen as a successful multilateral agreement designed to curb nuclear proliferation by ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program remained peaceful. The U.S. exit from the deal sent a message that nuclear agreements might be disregarded if political priorities change, undermining the legitimacy of efforts aimed at containing nuclear proliferation.
Encouraging Nuclear Hedging – Other countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, began to reconsider their own nuclear policies. The possibility that a future U.S. administration could walk away from nonproliferation commitments made regional powers consider nuclear hedging, seeking to develop their own nuclear capabilities in case they could not rely on nonproliferation mechanisms.
Weakening Global Consensus – The U.S. move alienated key allies and partners who had worked together to advance nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. By withdrawing from the JCPOA, the U.S. weakened the global consensus that had emerged around the idea that nuclear proliferation could be contained through diplomatic and multilateral engagement.

Impact on Future Arms Control Negotiations

Trump’s actions have also set a concerning precedent for future arms control negotiations. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA demonstrated that major nuclear powers could unilaterally abandon agreements if they did not align with their national interests. This approach created uncertainty about the future of arms control agreements, including:

The New START Treaty – The JCPOA’s collapse also cast a shadow over other arms control agreements, including the New START Treaty with Russia, which was due for renewal in 2021. Although Trump eventually extended the treaty, the overall atmosphere of distrust surrounding arms control was intensified, and future arms control efforts could face increased skepticism and resistance.
Potential for an Arms Race – Without reliable arms control agreements, countries might increase their nuclear capabilities to maintain strategic parity. This could result in an accelerated arms race, particularly in volatile regions like the Middle East and Asia, where nuclear proliferation could destabilize the global security environment.

Increased Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East

The Middle East became a focal point of nuclear proliferation concerns following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. Several consequences followed:

Iran’s Nuclear Program – As Iran resumed activities that violated the JCPOA’s terms, including enriching uranium beyond the limits of the deal and reducing IAEA inspections, the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran grew.
Regional Nuclear Arms Race – Countries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have expressed interest in developing their own nuclear programs. If Iran pursued a nuclear weapon, these nations might follow suit, igniting a nuclear arms race in a region already plagued by instability.
Weakened Diplomatic Leverage – The U.S. withdrawal diminished the leverage of diplomatic solutions to the Middle East’s nuclear challenges, making it harder for international actors to maintain pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear activities.

Diplomatic Backlash and the European Effort to Salvage the Deal

The U.S. exit also shifted the dynamics of international diplomacy. Europe, along with Russia and China, tried to preserve the deal by negotiating ways to bypass U.S. sanctions, including setting up the INSTEX mechanism to facilitate trade with Iran without violating U.S. sanctions. However, their efforts were limited by U.S. secondary sanctions, which penalized companies and countries doing business with Iran. Despite Europe’s best efforts, the JCPOA’s long-term survival was jeopardized, and the division between the U.S. and its European allies deepened.

Increased Global Uncertainty

The broader consequence of the U.S. exit from the JCPOA was the increased uncertainty in global efforts to contain nuclear proliferation. Other states, particularly non-nuclear weapon states, saw the U.S. withdrawal as an indication that nuclear diplomacy could be easily undone by changes in national leadership. This undermined confidence in multilateral efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, discouraging future cooperation in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

A conceptual image depicting the risk of nuclear war during President Trump's administration, featuring a nuclear explosion in the background with a tense political atmosphere

Relations with Russia and China

1.Strained Ties with Russia Over Nuclear Arms Discussions

The relationship between the United States and Russia was significantly impacted by the Trump administration’s approach to nuclear arms control and its decisions regarding arms agreements. One of the major points of tension was the U.S. withdrawal from key arms control treaties, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 and the mixed signals surrounding the renewal of the New START Treaty. These actions fueled strains in nuclear arms discussions, putting U.S.-Russia relations at their lowest point in decades, with significant implications for global strategic stability.

The INF Treaty and U.S. Withdrawal

One of the most dramatic ruptures in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control came in 2019 when President Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the INF Treaty, a cornerstone agreement signed in 1987 between President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The INF Treaty was designed to eliminate ground-launched intermediate-range missiles (500-5,500 kilometers), which were seen as highly destabilizing, particularly in Europe.

The U.S. cited Russia’s violation of the treaty as the primary reason for its decision to pull out, specifically pointing to Russia’s development and deployment of the 9M729 missile (NATO’s SSC-8), which the U.S. argued violated the treaty’s terms. Russia denied these allegations and accused the U.S. of similar violations, especially related to missile defense systems and other technologies.

The U.S. withdrawal marked a significant breakdown in arms control diplomacy and led to Russia’s own suspension of its obligations under the treaty. The decision not only ignited tensions between the two nuclear powers but also created fears of a renewed arms race, particularly in Europe, as both countries were now free to develop and deploy previously banned weapons. The collapse of the INF Treaty also cast doubt on the future of multilateral nuclear arms agreements and raised concerns over the potential for new nuclear missile deployments in the region.

New START Treaty and Tense Negotiations

Another key aspect of the strained U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship under Trump’s presidency was the future of the New START Treaty, the last remaining major nuclear arms control agreement between the two countries. Signed in 2010 by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, New START limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles each country can deploy, with specific provisions for on-site inspections and verification.

However, during his first term, Trump questioned the effectiveness of the treaty and pushed for extensive revisions. He argued that the agreement should include China, which was not bound by New START, and also wanted to reduce the number of U.S. nuclear warheads even further. These demands created significant diplomatic friction with Russia, which opposed any changes to the treaty. Russia also expressed concerns that the U.S. would withdraw from New START in a similar manner to the INF Treaty, potentially abandoning arms control entirely.

In the face of growing tension, and with the treaty set to expire in 2021, both countries eventually agreed to a five-year extension in February 2021, just days before the treaty’s expiration. While the extension was seen as a positive step for arms control, the fact that it took a significant amount of negotiation to keep the treaty alive underscored the fragile state of U.S.-Russia nuclear relations during the Trump years.

Russian Concerns Over U.S. Missile Defense

Russia’s concerns were not limited to U.S. withdrawals from nuclear agreements but also involved U.S. missile defense systems. Moscow has long viewed American missile defense capabilities—particularly the deployment of Aegis Ashore systems in Eastern Europe—as a direct threat to its nuclear deterrent. Russia has argued that such missile defense systems, even if designed for defensive purposes, could potentially be used to neutralize Russian nuclear missiles during a conflict, upsetting the balance of power and destabilizing strategic stability.

The Trump administration, which strongly backed the deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, made little effort to assuage these Russian concerns. This contributed to the broader distrust between the two countries, making it more difficult to engage in constructive discussions on reducing nuclear arsenals or stabilizing regional security dynamics.

Russia’s Response to U.S. Actions

In response to the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the tension surrounding New START, Russia began accelerating the development of new nuclear weapons systems. These included the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and the Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Russia also conducted tests of new hypersonic missiles that the U.S. has also prioritized, adding to concerns about an emerging arms race in new technologies.

Additionally, Russia’s nuclear posture became more assertive under President Vladimir Putin, including frequent references to the potential use of nuclear weapons as part of Russia’s military doctrine in response to perceived Western encroachments. This was accompanied by increased rhetoric from Russian officials, claiming that the U.S. was driving the world toward a new Cold War-style arms race.

Impact on Global Arms Control and Stability

The tension between the U.S. and Russia over nuclear arms control has had broader implications for global arms control efforts. With both sides ramping up their nuclear modernization programs, arms control advocates feared that the collapse of agreements like the INF Treaty could trigger an international nuclear arms race. Moreover, the U.S. and Russia’s strategic competition has made it more difficult to reach consensus on multilateral arms control agreements, particularly as other countries—like China—have expanded their own nuclear arsenals and missile programs.

The Legacy of Trump’s Nuclear Policy

Trump’s confrontational stance toward arms control with Russia left a complex legacy. On one hand, his policies were aimed at securing a tougher position toward Russia and addressing what the U.S. perceived as unfair arms agreements. On the other hand, his withdrawal from key agreements like the INF Treaty and his tough stance on New START exacerbated tensions, leading to greater nuclear insecurity. As a result, the prospect of future arms control agreements—especially ones that include emerging nuclear powers like China—became more challenging.

2.The Rise of China as a Nuclear Power and Trump’s Response

Under President Trump’s leadership, one of the most significant shifts in global nuclear dynamics was the growing recognition of China as an emerging nuclear power. While China had long maintained a relatively modest nuclear arsenal compared to the United States and Russia, its nuclear capabilities began to expand rapidly in the 2010s. This rise posed a new challenge to U.S. nuclear strategy and arms control efforts, as Beijing’s increasing investment in nuclear technology was seen as a potential threat to the global balance of power and U.S. military superiority. Trump’s response to China’s nuclear ascent shaped both his approach to arms control and his broader strategy toward China.

China’s Nuclear Expansion

China’s nuclear modernization efforts accelerated under President Xi Jinping, with the Chinese government focusing on developing more advanced nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. Key developments included:

Expansion of Nuclear Arsenal: China’s nuclear stockpile, although still significantly smaller than those of the U.S. and Russia, grew steadily throughout the 2010s. Estimates suggest that China had approximately 300 nuclear warheads by 2020, a sharp increase from previous years. The country’s development of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), which allow a single missile to carry multiple warheads, increased the potential strike capability of its nuclear forces.
Deployment of New Delivery Systems: China developed a variety of new missile systems, including ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and hypersonic weapons, with a particular focus on mobile missile launchers to make its nuclear forces harder to detect and target. These advances aimed to bolster China’s nuclear deterrent and enhance its ability to strike U.S. targets, particularly in the Pacific and East Asia.
Missile Defense and Countermeasures: In response to U.S. missile defense systems, China has also pursued advanced missile systems capable of evading interception, such as hypersonic glide vehicles and stealthy cruise missiles. These technologies are seen as a way for China to offset U.S. advantages in missile defense and maintain strategic credibility.

Trump’s Strategic Response

The rise of China as a nuclear power represented a challenge to the U.S. nuclear strategy, which had been largely focused on deterrence with Russia. Trump’s response to China’s growing nuclear capabilities was shaped by a combination of rhetoric, strategic shifts, and military modernization.

Inclusion of China in Arms Control Discussions
One of Trump’s key objectives regarding China’s nuclear rise was to bring China into arms control negotiations, particularly with respect to strategic stability. Trump repeatedly called for a new nuclear arms agreement that would include not only the United States and Russia (the two largest nuclear powers) but also China, which had never been part of a major arms control treaty. Trump’s administration argued that China’s growing nuclear capabilities made it essential to engage Beijing in multilateral discussions on arms control, as the New START Treaty (which only limited U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals) was increasingly seen as outdated in the context of China’s expansion.
- The U.S. demanded that China limit its nuclear buildup and engage in transparency regarding its stockpile, something China was resistant to, citing the U.S. and Russia’s vastly larger arsenals and arguing that its nuclear forces were solely for deterrence.
- China’s resistance to joining arms control agreements created a diplomatic impasse, with the U.S. insisting on the need for multilateral discussions, while China maintained that its nuclear arsenal was small and defensive in nature and should not be constrained by agreements that excluded its main strategic competitors, the U.S. and Russia.
Pressure on China’s Military Modernization
Trump’s response to China’s nuclear ascent was not only diplomatic but also military. The administration sought to counter China’s growing military capabilities—including its nuclear forces—through various strategies:
- Strengthening U.S. Indo-Pacific Presence: The Trump administration increased military deployments in the Indo-Pacific region, conducting more frequent military exercises and positioning assets like nuclear-capable bombers and submarines in the region to deter China’s expansion. The focus was on demonstrating the U.S. commitment to defending allies like Japan and South Korea, as well as ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, a region where China had increasingly asserted control.
- Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Forces: The Trump administration prioritized the modernization of U.S. nuclear forces to maintain a credible deterrent against China. This included the development of new nuclear-capable missiles and upgraded warheads, as well as a focus on hypersonic weapons to counter China’s advancements in this area.
- A More Aggressive Rhetoric: Trump’s rhetoric toward China became more confrontational, with accusations that China was seeking to challenge U.S. global dominance and alter the balance of power. While this rhetoric was often directed at broader trade and geopolitical issues, it also encompassed China’s military rise and its nuclear developments. The U.S. posture was increasingly one of competition with China in all domains, including nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and China
Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in 2018 emphasized a growing concern about the rise of China and Russia as nuclear competitors. The review highlighted several key themes regarding China:
- Deterrence and Counterforce Strategy: The NPR argued that the U.S. needed to maintain the ability to deter and counter a nuclear attack from China, noting the growing sophistication of China’s nuclear arsenal. It called for more flexible response options, including low-yield nuclear weapons, to maintain a credible deterrent.
- Nuclear Superiority: Trump’s nuclear strategy sought to ensure nuclear superiority over China (and Russia) by maintaining the U.S. as the leading nuclear power with cutting-edge technology and the capacity to engage in a nuclear arms race if necessary.
Strategic Competition and the Indo-Pacific
Trump framed the growing nuclear competition with China as part of the broader strategic competition between the two nations, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. was increasingly concerned about China’s ambitions in this region, including its assertiveness in the South China Sea, its technological advancements, and its efforts to challenge U.S. military dominance in the Pacific. Nuclear weapons played a role in this strategic rivalry, with both nations focused on maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent in the event of a confrontation over territorial disputes or other issues.

Challenges and Limitations of Trump’s Approach

Despite Trump’s efforts to counter China’s nuclear rise, his approach faced several challenges:

China’s Reluctance to Engage: China’s refusal to engage in nuclear arms control discussions with the U.S. meant that Trump’s diplomatic efforts were limited. China viewed its nuclear arsenal as defensive and minimal, and its leaders were unwilling to enter negotiations that might limit their ability to defend themselves against perceived U.S. aggression.
Arms Control Stalemate: The U.S. and China were unable to make significant progress in arms control talks, creating a situation in which the U.S. was compelled to rely on military modernization and regional alliances to manage the emerging nuclear competition.
Escalating Arms Race: As both countries pursued nuclear modernization, concerns about an arms race—particularly in the realm of hypersonic weapons—grew. China’s growing nuclear and missile capabilities, combined with the U.S. efforts to maintain nuclear superiority, created a dynamic of escalating competition.

Conclusion: A New Era of Nuclear Competition

The rise of China as a nuclear power during the Trump administration contributed to a new era of nuclear competition. While Trump’s response was shaped by a combination of military buildup, nuclear modernization, and diplomatic pressure, the lack of significant arms control agreements with China left a growing power imbalance. The competition between the U.S. and China in the nuclear domain remains a defining feature of modern geopolitics, shaping the contours of global nuclear security and arms control efforts.

3.Impact on Global Arms Race and Future Stability

The rise of nuclear powers like China, the modernization of nuclear arsenals by the U.S. and Russia, and the collapse of key arms control agreements during the Trump administration significantly impacted the global nuclear arms race and posed challenges to long-term strategic stability. These developments created a complex environment where traditional arms control measures were weakened, while competition between nuclear powers intensified, increasing the risks of miscalculation, arms proliferation, and regional instability.

Escalation of the Nuclear Arms Race

The Trump administration’s approach to nuclear policy, particularly in relation to China and Russia, contributed to a new phase in the global nuclear arms race. By withdrawing from critical arms control agreements, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and engaging in military modernization programs, the U.S. triggered a competitive escalation in nuclear capabilities, especially in regions like Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East. This raised several concerns:

Nuclear Proliferation: The breakdown of nuclear arms agreements between the major powers and the development of new weapons systems like hypersonic missiles and ballistic missile defense systems made nonproliferation efforts more challenging. Countries that felt vulnerable to nuclear threats—whether from China, Russia, or the U.S.—may have been incentivized to either pursue their own nuclear capabilities or increase defense spending, further expanding the arms race.
Technological Arms Race: The development of next-generation nuclear technologies, such as hypersonic weapons, autonomous delivery systems, and cyber-nuclear integration, accelerated the arms race in ways that traditional arms control frameworks were unprepared for. These emerging technologies, which blur the lines between conventional and nuclear weapons, complicate efforts to maintain strategic stability. As each nation raced to develop the next breakthrough, there was a greater risk of strategic misinterpretation or accidental escalation.
Regional Flashpoints: The renewed competition in nuclear capabilities and missile defense systems contributed to heightened tensions in key regions where strategic interests were already contested. In particular, the U.S.-China rivalry in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S.-Russia standoff in Europe, and instability in the Middle East all saw the potential for increased reliance on nuclear deterrence as part of national defense strategies. In these areas, the modernization of nuclear forces may have led to an arms race that could destabilize existing balances and heighten the risk of nuclear escalation in the event of conflict.

Challenges to Arms Control Frameworks

The collapse of the INF Treaty, the uncertain future of New START, and the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) under the Trump administration severely undermined decades of arms control agreements and diplomatic frameworks that had previously helped maintain a semblance of strategic stability. This created several risks for global nuclear governance:

Erosion of Multilateralism: Trump’s policies often favored bilateral negotiations (e.g., with Russia or China) rather than multilateral approaches, which further weakened international frameworks designed to curb nuclear proliferation. As the U.S. withdrew from agreements like the INF Treaty and JCPOA, it sent a signal to other nuclear and non-nuclear states that arms control was increasingly discretionary and could be easily undermined. This could inspire other nations to abandon arms control measures or develop weapons outside existing international frameworks, undermining global nonproliferation efforts.
Global Confidence in Nuclear Security: The collapse of arms control agreements and the U.S. retreat from multilateral nuclear diplomacy weakened global confidence in the effectiveness of arms control measures to limit nuclear threats. Without concrete treaties in place, the risk of an uncontrolled arms race becomes more significant, as nations may begin to focus more on their individual deterrence capabilities rather than working towards shared security goals. This breakdown in trust between nations could also make future arms control negotiations more challenging, as countries may feel less willing to compromise in the absence of binding agreements.
Diplomatic Isolation and Competition: The U.S.’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and its opposition to multilateral nuclear arms treaties led to increased diplomatic isolation in nuclear nonproliferation efforts. For example, after the U.S. pulled out of the JCPOA, other countries, including European powers, sought to salvage the deal by maintaining trade with Iran, leading to tensions with the U.S. This left the U.S. in a position where it had limited leverage to push its nuclear nonproliferation goals, as other countries increasingly acted without U.S. guidance on nuclear diplomacy. Simultaneously, China and Russia have moved to fill the diplomatic void left by the U.S. in key regions, further complicating efforts for global nuclear stability.

Implications for Future Strategic Stability

The long-term implications of these developments on strategic stability are concerning. The failure to adapt arms control frameworks to new challenges, like emerging technologies and expanding nuclear arsenals, creates a situation where the risk of nuclear conflict is higher than at any point since the Cold War. Key factors influencing future stability include:

Potential for Miscalculation: As nations increase their reliance on nuclear weapons and advanced military technologies, the potential for miscalculation or accidental escalation grows. The more complex the nuclear environment, the more difficult it becomes to understand adversaries’ intentions or to manage conflict without crossing the line into nuclear use. In particular, the introduction of low-yield nuclear weapons, hypersonic systems, and autonomous delivery platforms could create ambiguities about the nature of nuclear threats, further complicating crisis management.
Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine: The concept of nuclear deterrence may become less effective in the future, especially as new nuclear players emerge and as technological advancements make it harder to gauge the capabilities and intentions of potential adversaries. Countries may feel compelled to expand or modernize their nuclear arsenals to ensure a credible deterrent, which could result in a proliferation of nuclear weapons to regions that were previously non-nuclear. This raises the specter of nuclear regional conflicts in areas with less stable political environments, such as South Asia, the Middle East, or North Korea.
The Need for New Arms Control Frameworks: The absence of effective arms control agreements in a multipolar nuclear world underscores the need for new frameworks that address both traditional nuclear weapons and emerging technologies. These agreements should aim to prevent escalation, enhance confidence-building measures, and provide transparency between nuclear powers. However, the challenges posed by the Trump administration’s approach to arms control make it uncertain whether such agreements can be forged in the future. The growing divergence in nuclear policies and priorities between China, Russia, the U.S., and other nuclear states may complicate any new attempts at arms control.

Conclusion: A More Unpredictable Future

The Trump administration’s policies on nuclear arms, particularly with respect to China, Russia, and arms control agreements, set the stage for an unpredictable and potentially dangerous future for global nuclear stability. By abandoning key arms control agreements, ramping up military modernization, and engaging in nuclear brinkmanship, the U.S. contributed to a broader global arms race and weakened the foundations of strategic stability. The absence of new, comprehensive arms control agreements and the rise of new nuclear technologies only heighten the uncertainty, leaving future international efforts at arms control and nuclear nonproliferation facing a more complex and perilous landscape.

Long-Term Implications for Global Security

1.How Trump’s Policies Shaped Future U.S. Nuclear Strategy

President Donald Trump’s approach to nuclear policy marked a significant departure from previous administrations, and its long-term impact on U.S. nuclear strategy continues to influence discussions around nuclear deterrence, arms control, and military modernization. Trump’s policies emphasized military strength, strategic flexibility, and a revitalized nuclear deterrence posture aimed at ensuring U.S. superiority and readiness in an increasingly multipolar world. The way he shaped U.S. nuclear strategy—through modernization programs, withdrawal from arms control agreements, and a more unpredictable diplomatic approach—has left a lasting legacy that will influence U.S. nuclear doctrine for years to come.

Nuclear Modernization and Deterrence Policy

A key component of Trump’s nuclear strategy was his commitment to modernizing U.S. nuclear forces. This effort focused on maintaining nuclear superiority over potential adversaries, particularly Russia and China, whose arsenals were expanding. Trump’s policies emphasized the need to update and replace aging nuclear systems, ensuring that the U.S. could maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in a changing global security environment.

Modernization of Nuclear Arsenal: Trump’s administration committed to modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad, which consists of land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic bombers. This included:
- Development of low-yield nuclear weapons to counter adversary advancements and to provide a more flexible response in regional crises.
- Investment in nuclear-capable bombers, such as the B-21 Raider, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), to enhance the survivability and mobility of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
- Warhead modernization programs to ensure that nuclear warheads remain credible, reliable, and effective for deterrence.
Deterrence Strategy: The Trump administration’s focus on deterrence led to a reinvigoration of the concept of extended deterrence—the U.S. commitment to protect its allies under the nuclear umbrella. This strategy aimed to counterbalance adversaries’ nuclear and conventional capabilities by ensuring that any nuclear attack on U.S. allies or partners would provoke a devastating U.S. response. The modernization programs sought to make this deterrence more credible and flexible by introducing low-yield options and new delivery systems that could be used to respond to a range of threats.
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR): The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review outlined Trump’s vision for U.S. nuclear strategy, emphasizing a strong deterrence against nuclear and non-nuclear threats. The review outlined several key priorities:
- Flexibility in Response: Emphasizing that the U.S. would maintain a wide array of options for nuclear retaliation, including low-yield nuclear weapons, to deter adversaries from using nuclear or conventional weapons against the U.S. or its allies.
- Modernization of Strategic Capabilities: The NPR stressed the need for investment in both nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities to ensure the U.S. could maintain strategic superiority over emerging nuclear powers like China and Russia.

Impact on Arms Control and Nonproliferation Efforts

Trump’s approach to nuclear policy had profound implications for arms control and nonproliferation efforts. His decisions to withdraw from arms control agreements, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), reshaped the U.S. approach to global nuclear governance and diplomacy.

Withdrawal from the INF Treaty: One of Trump’s most significant actions in this regard was the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty in 2019. The INF Treaty had long been a cornerstone of arms control, eliminating a whole category of nuclear missiles in Europe. Trump’s decision to pull out signaled a break with multilateral arms control frameworks, opening the door to a new phase of nuclear competition between the U.S., Russia, and China. This withdrawal:
- Undermined global arms control: With the INF Treaty’s collapse, there was no longer a bilateral U.S.-Russia agreement addressing medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. This weakened the overall arms control architecture, making it harder to negotiate future reductions or restrictions.
- Set the stage for a new arms race: The U.S. and Russia both embarked on developing new intermediate-range missile systems, and China, not being part of the INF Treaty, expanded its missile capabilities without constraints. This contributed to a new arms race that included multiple powers and advanced technologies, such as hypersonic missiles.
Rejection of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018 sent shockwaves through global nonproliferation efforts. The JCPOA had been a landmark agreement aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump’s exit from the agreement:
- Risked nuclear proliferation: The U.S. exit left the agreement in disarray, with Iran gradually resuming its nuclear enrichment activities, raising concerns over the potential for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
- Weakened U.S. diplomatic leverage: Trump’s withdrawal undermined the U.S.’s credibility in future arms control negotiations, making it more difficult for the U.S. to convince adversaries to engage in diplomatic solutions on nuclear issues.
Deterioration of Multilateral Diplomacy: Trump’s policies increasingly prioritized bilateral negotiations over multilateral efforts, which marginalized institutions like the United Nations and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This shift was seen as weakening global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, as regional nuclear powers—including North Korea and Iran—felt less pressure to adhere to international norms. The lack of a comprehensive, multilateral approach led to greater fragmentation in nuclear diplomacy and challenges to establishing robust nonproliferation regimes.

Influence on U.S. Nuclear Policy Post-Trump

The policies implemented during the Trump administration have significantly influenced the direction of U.S. nuclear strategy in the years since. Even with a change in leadership, key aspects of Trump’s nuclear legacy are likely to persist:

Continued Focus on Modernization: The push for nuclear modernization that Trump championed, including the renewal of the nuclear triad and the development of low-yield weapons, will likely remain a cornerstone of U.S. nuclear strategy. Both military planners and policymakers have recognized the importance of maintaining a credible deterrent, particularly against emerging nuclear powers like China and Russia. The Biden administration, though advocating for arms control, has largely maintained many of these modernization programs to ensure that U.S. deterrence remains effective.
Commitment to Deterrence: Trump’s emphasis on deterrence—and the broader principle of extended deterrence to protect allies—has persisted in U.S. strategy. Future administrations will continue to prioritize nuclear weapons as the ultimate safeguard against existential threats, especially as rival powers like China and Russia expand their arsenals.
Challenges to Arms Control: Trump’s decision to withdraw from key agreements created a legacy of skepticism toward arms control that could affect future U.S. policy. While arms control remains a priority for many in the U.S. government, especially in light of nuclear risks with Russia and China, the difficulties in negotiating and adhering to multilateral agreements, coupled with technological advancements in nuclear weapons, will complicate the arms control landscape moving forward. Any future nuclear arms reduction efforts will have to consider the changing nature of nuclear threats, including cyber threats and emerging missile technologies.
Heightened Nuclear Competition: Trump’s approach to nuclear deterrence and arms control may have contributed to the acceleration of the global nuclear arms race, especially with China and Russia. As the U.S. seeks to maintain its nuclear superiority, competition with other powers will likely intensify, with all parties working to develop new and more advanced capabilities. This increasing reliance on nuclear deterrence may lead to new forms of military escalation, with the potential for nuclear brinkmanship in regions of tension, such as the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Strength, Uncertainty, and Competition

Trump’s nuclear policies have profoundly reshaped the trajectory of U.S. nuclear strategy. His focus on modernization, deterrence, and withdrawal from arms control agreements has established a foundation for future U.S. nuclear policy that is likely to persist in the coming decades. While this approach is seen by some as strengthening U.S. security and ensuring military superiority, it also contributed to a more unpredictable nuclear environment and deepened the arms race among global powers. The long-term implications of these policies will continue to influence U.S. nuclear strategy, with challenges in arms control and strategic stability remaining significant concerns for future generations.

2.The Precedent Set for Future Administrations

The Trump administration’s approach to nuclear policy has set a significant precedent that will influence the strategies, priorities, and decision-making processes of future U.S. administrations. Trump’s policies on nuclear deterrence, arms control, military modernization, and global nuclear governance represented a break from established norms, which will have lasting implications for U.S. nuclear strategy and international security. The legacy of his policies has created a complex environment in which future leaders will need to navigate between maintaining U.S. nuclear superiority, engaging in arms control, and managing increasingly tense relations with other nuclear powers, such as China and Russia.

Normalization of Military Modernization

One of the key elements of Trump’s nuclear policy was the emphasis on the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The administration invested heavily in updating the nuclear triad and developing new technologies, including low-yield nuclear weapons and hypersonic missile systems. This focus on nuclear modernization has set a new standard for future administrations, making it increasingly difficult for successors to walk back these investments without facing political and military pushback.

Strengthening the Nuclear Triad: The commitment to nuclear modernization, including upgrades to strategic bombers, submarine-launched missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), is likely to remain a cornerstone of U.S. nuclear policy. Future administrations, even those seeking to reduce nuclear arsenals, will likely continue maintaining a robust and technologically advanced nuclear force as a means of ensuring deterrence against potential adversaries. The idea that the U.S. nuclear arsenal must remain credible, flexible, and capable of addressing emerging threats will likely continue to shape policy, even under leadership with different priorities.
Emerging Nuclear Technologies: Trump’s focus on low-yield nuclear weapons and hypersonic missile development has highlighted the growing importance of emerging technologies in modern nuclear warfare. As these technologies continue to evolve, future administrations may feel compelled to maintain or accelerate their development to ensure U.S. technological dominance in nuclear deterrence. These advanced capabilities will likely become central to U.S. defense planning, even if they diverge from traditional arms control frameworks.

Arms Control and Treaty Engagement

Trump’s decision to withdraw from key arms control agreements—most notably the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)—has set a precedent for more transactional and unilateral approaches to arms control and nonproliferation diplomacy. His administration’s reluctance to engage in multilateral agreements and prioritize long-term diplomatic commitments has raised questions about the future of arms control.

Questioning the Efficacy of Multilateral Arms Control: Trump’s skepticism toward multilateral treaties, such as the INF Treaty and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), may influence future administrations to adopt a more cautious or skeptical approach toward engaging in international arms control agreements. While the Biden administration has signaled a return to multilateral diplomacy and a focus on arms reduction (as evidenced by the extension of the New START Treaty), there may still be a prevailing sentiment that arms control must be more equitable and inclusive, considering the rise of new nuclear powers like China.
Emphasis on Bilateral Agreements: Trump’s preference for bilateral negotiations—such as his direct engagement with North Korea and Russia—may influence future U.S. administrations to focus on bilateral treaties and agreements rather than multilateral frameworks. This could lead to a shift in how nuclear agreements are structured, with an increased emphasis on tailored agreements between specific powers, rather than global frameworks that address broader concerns like nonproliferation and disarmament. While bilateral diplomacy may offer flexibility, it risks undermining global norms if other nations perceive a lack of consistency in U.S. policy.

Withdrawal from Multilateral Commitments

Trump’s withdrawal from significant multilateral agreements, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the JCPOA, reinforced a shift towards American exceptionalism and a reluctance to tie U.S. policy to international obligations. In the nuclear realm, this precedent may influence future administrations to prioritize national interests over international consensus. This tendency could pose challenges for global nuclear governance and may weaken the collective effort to prevent nuclear proliferation and address issues such as the future of nuclear arms reduction.

Uncertainty in Global Security: The Trump administration’s unpredictability regarding U.S. commitments on the global stage has set a precedent of uncertainty, particularly in the context of arms control. Future administrations may face greater challenges in reestablishing trust with global allies and adversaries who now question the U.S.’s long-term commitment to arms control. The lack of a consistent, reliable U.S. approach to arms control agreements has created an environment in which future leaders must work harder to rebuild diplomatic credibility and foster international cooperation on nuclear issues.
Shift Toward Regional Security Concerns: Trump’s emphasis on national sovereignty and regional security over global frameworks could encourage future U.S. administrations to take a more regional approach to nuclear policy, engaging in arms control and deterrence strategies that prioritize specific regional conflicts—such as those involving North Korea or Iran—over global nonproliferation efforts. This shift could undermine broader global nuclear disarmament goals and heighten regional instability in areas where nuclear weapons are already a point of contention.

Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy and Alliances

Trump’s handling of nuclear diplomacy, particularly his strained relationships with traditional U.S. allies and his unpredictable rhetoric, has had significant repercussions for future U.S. foreign policy and alliances. His “America First” approach often placed the U.S. at odds with key international partners, creating a potential challenge for future administrations seeking to restore trust and cooperation.

Shift in Alliance Dynamics: Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and his criticism of NATO led to increased concerns among U.S. allies about America’s commitment to collective defense and nonproliferation efforts. In the future, U.S. presidents will need to work harder to rebuild these alliances and convince European powers, Asia-Pacific nations, and Middle Eastern allies that the U.S. remains a reliable partner in addressing global nuclear challenges. Rebuilding multilateral trust may require significant diplomatic effort and more consistent engagement with international institutions like the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Governance: Trump’s policies have created a leadership vacuum in nuclear diplomacy, particularly with regard to arms control and nonproliferation efforts. Future administrations will have to contend with competing interests from rising powers like China and Russia, which are actively seeking to shape the global nuclear order. Whether the U.S. can regain its position as a leader in nuclear diplomacy will depend on its ability to balance domestic priorities with global security commitments, rebuilding trust and cooperation through both bilateral engagement and multilateral initiatives.

Conclusion: A Shifting Nuclear Landscape

The precedent set by Trump’s nuclear policies has left the U.S. in a position where future administrations must carefully navigate the evolving challenges of global nuclear security. The emphasis on nuclear modernization, skepticism towards multilateral arms control, and unpredictable diplomatic rhetoric has reshaped the U.S. nuclear strategy, creating a framework that future leaders will need to address, refine, or recalibrate. Whether the next administration chooses to continue or depart from Trump’s policies, the underlying issues of deterrence, technological competition, and arms control will continue to shape the trajectory of U.S. nuclear strategy for decades to come.

3.Lessons Learned and the Path Forward

The Trump administration’s approach to nuclear policy offers several critical lessons for future U.S. leaders, particularly in balancing military deterrence, arms control, and diplomacy in a complex and evolving global landscape. The path forward will require a careful reassessment of the strategies that shaped Trump’s tenure, with particular attention to the lessons learned from both his successes and challenges. Moving forward, the U.S. must find a way to adapt to a multipolar nuclear world, strengthen its relationships with key allies, and engage with adversaries in ways that reduce the risk of nuclear escalation while also ensuring that the country maintains its deterrence capabilities.

Lesson 1: The Importance of Strategic Stability

One of the key lessons from Trump’s nuclear policy is the importance of strategic stability in global nuclear relations. While Trump’s emphasis on nuclear modernization ensured that the U.S. maintained its technological edge, his erratic rhetoric and withdrawal from arms control agreements like the INF Treaty and the JCPOA created uncertainty and instability in international relations.

Path Forward: Future administrations should prioritize strategic stability through clear communication and engagement with adversaries. The U.S. should seek to avoid provocative language that could escalate tensions, and instead engage in diplomatic dialogue to manage arms control negotiations and reduce risks of nuclear conflict. This could include reinforcing commitments to existing arms control treaties (e.g., New START) while exploring new frameworks that address emerging threats from China and Russia. Additionally, transparency in military capabilities and confidence-building measures could be key to reducing misunderstandings and fostering stability.

Lesson 2: The Need for a Consistent and Predictable Approach

Trump’s approach to nuclear policy was often marked by unpredictability, which created confusion both at home and abroad. While his unconventional diplomacy—such as summits with North Korea—was hailed as bold, it also created confusion regarding the U.S. commitment to its nuclear nonproliferation and arms control responsibilities. The fire and fury rhetoric, coupled with abrupt policy shifts, raised concerns about the possibility of miscalculation and accidental conflict.

Path Forward: Future leaders must recognize that consistency and predictability are essential in nuclear diplomacy. While flexibility and bold actions are sometimes necessary, having a clear and coherent strategy is essential for maintaining global stability. By reinforcing long-term commitments to arms control and nuclear security frameworks, the U.S. can signal to allies and adversaries alike that it is a stable, reliable partner in maintaining global peace. Bipartisan support for nuclear policy initiatives will also ensure that future administrations can build on these commitments, rather than risking policy shifts every time the White House changes.

Lesson 3: The Need for Multilateral Engagement

Trump’s withdrawal from key multilateral agreements, such as the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), weakened the global nonproliferation regime and left a void in multilateral nuclear diplomacy. While he sought to engage in bilateral talks (notably with North Korea), these efforts did not produce long-term solutions, and his actions created friction with key allies, especially in Europe. His disregard for multilateral institutions and treaties diminished the global consensus on preventing nuclear proliferation.

Path Forward: To restore U.S. leadership in global arms control, future administrations must engage with multilateral frameworks and rebuild trust with international partners. Rejoining or strengthening multilateral agreements, such as the NPT and the JCPOA (if conditions allow), would demonstrate a U.S. commitment to nonproliferation and disarmament. Moreover, the U.S. should take a leading role in addressing the nuclear threats posed by new players like China and North Korea, while continuing to support arms control efforts with Russia and other nuclear states. A renewed focus on diplomatic engagement and cooperative security will help stabilize international nuclear relations.

Lesson 4: The Challenge of Addressing Emerging Nuclear Threats

The rise of new nuclear powers, especially China and North Korea, highlights a critical challenge for future U.S. nuclear strategy. Trump’s focus on nuclear modernization was driven by concerns over Russia and China’s growing capabilities, but his policies did not adequately address the strategic implications of China’s expanding nuclear arsenal. Additionally, his approach to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions failed to result in meaningful denuclearization.

Path Forward: The U.S. must be proactive in addressing the evolving nuclear landscape and consider new threats as central to its nuclear strategy. This may require developing new deterrence strategies that account for China’s expanding nuclear capabilities, North Korea’s unpredictability, and other emerging nuclear threats. Moreover, as China and Russia expand their nuclear arsenals, future U.S. administrations may need to balance nuclear deterrence with efforts to reduce strategic arms through new arms control agreements. Engaging in multilateral discussions with these powers will be critical in establishing mutually agreed-upon limits for nuclear forces and reducing the risks of an arms race.

Lesson 5: The Intersection of Nuclear Strategy and Global Stability

Trump’s approach underscored the critical intersection between nuclear policy and broader global stability. While maintaining a strong deterrence capability is vital, the path to long-term security requires more than just military strength; it necessitates effective diplomacy and a commitment to the rules-based international order. Trump’s unpredictability and confrontational style at times threatened to undermine international security and diminish U.S. credibility as a global leader in promoting stability.

Path Forward: To achieve long-term stability, future U.S. administrations must balance nuclear modernization with a commitment to diplomacy. By investing in arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, the U.S. can work toward a more secure future while maintaining its military superiority. Additionally, global governance structures such as the UN and the IAEA must be reinforced, and regional security frameworks (such as NATO) should be supported to ensure a collective response to nuclear threats. Ensuring that the U.S. remains a consistent leader in both military and diplomatic efforts will be key to preventing nuclear conflict and fostering global peace.

A Balanced Approach for the Future

Trump’s nuclear policies, while successful in some areas, revealed key vulnerabilities in global arms control, strategic diplomacy, and the management of emerging nuclear threats. Future U.S. leaders must learn from these lessons and adopt a more balanced approach to nuclear deterrence—one that integrates military strength with multilateral diplomacy, arms control, and a commitment to international stability. By focusing on long-term strategic goals, strengthening alliances, and engaging in cooperative global governance, the U.S. can navigate the complex challenges of the nuclear age while ensuring that global security and nonproliferation remain top priorities.

Conclusion

Under President Trump, the risk of nuclear war was marked by heightened tensions, unpredictability, and a dramatic shift in the tone of U.S. foreign policy. His administration’s rhetoric, particularly the aggressive and often incendiary language toward adversaries like North Korea and Iran, combined with his willingness to withdraw from key arms control agreements, created an environment of uncertainty and raised fears of miscalculation and escalation. The “fire and fury” rhetoric directed at North Korea and the maximum pressure campaign against Iran exemplified a confrontational approach that risked increasing the likelihood of direct conflict.

However, Trump’s bold diplomatic moves—such as engaging directly with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un—offered a potential path for de-escalation, though these efforts did not result in concrete nuclear agreements. The administration’s focus on nuclear modernization and military strength as a deterrent was aimed at maintaining a superior position in global security, but it also raised concerns about sparking an arms race, particularly with Russia and China, and undercutting global nonproliferation efforts.

In hindsight, Trump’s presidency highlighted the precarious balance between nuclear deterrence and the risk of escalating tensions through unpredictable diplomacy and rhetoric. While his approach to nuclear diplomacy was bold, it also demonstrated the dangers of provocative language and the withdrawal from multilateral frameworks that help mitigate the risk of conflict. Moving forward, the U.S. must strike a more balanced approach—one that combines military readiness with strategic diplomacy, consistent commitments to arms control, and a renewed focus on multilateral cooperation to reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation on the global stage.

thank you for reading also: Dismantling the Department of Education: Trump’s Controversial Plan Explained – trendsfocus

And: https://le.ac.uk/news/2025/january/trump-nuclear