WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES – Former president Donald Trump suggested the United States should consider resuming nuclear testing, reviving a debate largely dormant since the early 1990s.
Though his remarks were striking in tone, they remained vague, leaving advisers and analysts uncertain whether he was referring to actual nuclear detonations or to missile and delivery-system trials.
Ambiguous message sparks alarm
Speaking on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said the US had “stopped testing, but now that others are doing it again, we should too.” His statement appeared to allude to recent military signals from Russia but did not specify what kind of tests were being considered. Experts quickly noted that no country is currently conducting full-scale nuclear explosion tests, and that Trump’s claim reflected more rhetoric than fact.
Security specialist Jon Wolfsthal described the situation as confusing, arguing that even Trump’s own advisers would need to interpret what he truly meant. The United States last carried out a nuclear test in 1992, maintaining an informal moratorium that has been viewed as central to restraint since the end of the Cold War. Restarting such tests would require complex technical preparations and would be politically costly, analysts said.
Echoes of Russian moves
Trump’s remarks came as President Vladimir Putin reported tests of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and an underwater torpedo system. According to experts, however, none of those activities involved detonating nuclear warheads. The suggestion that the US should respond in kind appeared, to some observers, as a reaction to Moscow’s demonstrations of capability rather than evidence of any strategic necessity.
Fears of a new nuclear race
Should Washington resume nuclear explosions, specialists warn of a dangerous domino effect. Russia and China could follow suit, quickly reigniting a global race to upgrade arsenals. Democratic senator Ed Markey cautioned that Trump’s stance could “trigger a spiral no one can control.”
Analysts say the potential consequences go beyond symbolism:
• Billions of dollars in testing and facility costs
• Severe backlash from allies and international monitors
• Pressure on existing arms control regimes and testing grounds
• Lower deterrence thresholds, raising long-term global risk
Instead of reinforcing US strength, experts warned, renewed testing could weaken deterrence and dismantle decades of nuclear diplomacy.
International partners react
The idea of reviving nuclear tests drew criticism from Moscow, Beijing, and Western allies alike. While Russia’s own system tests garnered attention, international observers emphasized that detonating live warheads would represent an escalation with far-reaching security repercussions. Diplomats and arms-control experts stressed that further testing would undermine trust, erode inspection systems, and heighten global uncertainty.
“MORE RISK, LESS TRANSPARENCY, AND A STEP BACK FROM HARD-WON DISARMAMENT,”
said one non-proliferation analyst, reflecting wider concern that decades of restraint could unravel.
Arms control treaties under strain
The debate comes as the New START treaty, a cornerstone of nuclear stability between Washington and Moscow, nears its expiration. Former US ambassador Michael McFaul urged that extending the deal should be the immediate priority. Without binding limits and verification measures, he warned, major powers could slide toward an unrestricted buildup of warheads and delivery systems.
Since 1992, the voluntary US test moratorium has been both a practical and symbolic commitment. Breaking it, experts note, would represent a historic breach of restraint with lasting consequences. “EACH STEP AWAY FROM DIALOGUE AND DISARMAMENT WEAKENS EVERYONE’S SECURITY,” one analyst noted, calling for renewed focus on negotiation rather than confrontation.
Political fallout in Washington
Within the US Congress, resistance to any resumption of nuclear testing grew swiftly. Senator Markey renewed calls to prioritize diplomacy over symbolic displays of toughness. Critics suggested Trump’s remarks may have also been driven by domestic political aims—demonstrating strength to his base ahead of electoral contests.
Inside the Pentagon, the lack of clarity caused unease. Officials questioned whether the former president meant to authorize actual nuclear detonations or merely hardware evaluations. For the defense establishment, both options carry major political and technical risks.
Wolfsthal and other security experts warned that a new round of testing would likely help Russia, China, and North Korea narrow the technological gap with the United States rather than strengthen America’s position. Beyond the rhetoric, many analysts agreed, the prospect of renewed nuclear explosions remains improbable—but the renewed debate already exposes the fragility of global arms-control norms.