During his first administration, President Trump rarely spoke about nuclear weapons, claiming he deliberately avoided the topic due to the gravity of the issue. But now, he brings them up frequently — in speeches, interviews, and policy discussions.
This rhetoric, though consistently in support of denuclearization, comes while nuclear arms control is still a partisan issue, with many convinced that the U.S. needs to expand its nuclear arsenal. All this talk of nukes paired with Trump’s proclivity for breaking longstanding international norms has raised concerns that a return to U.S. nuclear testing could make an appearance in national security debates this year.
Proposed Plans for Nuclear Testing
Project 2025, despite its many extreme positions, stops short of calling for immediate nuclear tests. However, it does recommend heightened test readiness at the Nevada National Security Site. Specifically, the proposal supports bolstering readiness from the Department of Energy’s mandated 36 months down to 6 months, which would require about $100 million investment at the site and years of preparation.
The most extreme perspective on nuclear testing comes from former National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who explicitly called for nuclear testing in a 2024 Foreign Affairs essay. Although O’Brien is not serving in the second Trump administration, Kevin Harrington, the new senior director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, was one of O’Brien’s closest collaborators during the last administration.
The only current administration official to speak on the record about nuclear testing is Trump’s new Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration Brandon Williams. During a confirmation hearing with the Senate Arms Services Committee in early April, Williams revealed that he “would not advise nuclear testing” and “rely on scientific information.”
Nuclear Testing is a Step Backward
For over 30 years, the U.S. has upheld a moratorium on nuclear testing, which has prevented an arms race and strengthened global security.
From a technical standpoint, testing is unnecessary. Billions of dollars are spent annually on the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
From a national security perspective, the question if the U.S. should restart nuclear testing also receives a strong no for an answer. As former U.S. negotiator James Timbie explains, renewed testing would benefit Russia and China far more than the United States, providing them with data they currently lack while offering the U.S. little strategic gain.
Congress has Weighed the Costs
In 2020, efforts to allocate funding for nuclear testing readiness sparked intense debate in Congress, as Senator Tom Cotton (AR) pushed for a $10 million provision in the annual military policy bill to reduce the time needed to conduct a nuclear test. Some proponents, among them Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee — all of whom voted for the amendment — argued it would strengthen deterrence against Russia and China, while those opposed, including Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Adam Smith (WA-9), thought this justification was insufficient.
The final bill ultimately excluded the test readiness funding, reflecting a broader congressional resistance to resuming nuclear testing.
Sen. Cotton and Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-2) had also introduced a bill in 2017 that sought to defund the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the main international framework for compliance and verification on banning nuclear testing.
Even though neither effort became law, they indicate the type of concerning developments we might expect in this new Congress.
A Path Toward Lasting Peace
Beyond compromising U.S. national security, nuclear testing carries a devastating human cost. People near and far from previous testing sites have experienced serious health effects from radioactive fallout, from direct contamination and indirect contamination of food and water.
Real security does not come from more nuclear explosions, but from preventing the use of nuclear weapons altogether. The U.S. should reaffirm its commitment to the nuclear testing moratorium, continue to invest in stockpile stewardship, and pursue diplomatic efforts that prioritize arms control and commitment to our allies.
Congress must push for policies rooted in peace and diplomacy, not fear and coercion. Along with 15 of our faith partners, FCNL affirms that diplomacy and nuclear arms control negotiations are the path to sustainable peace.
Sustaining the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium is essential to advancing global arms reductions and moving toward a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.
