February 5, 2026

The End of Arms Control?

For the first time, we will live in a world without constraints on the US-Russian nuclear arsenal.

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Russian Nuclear Missile Victory Day Parade
A vehicle transports a RS-24 Yars strategic nuclear missile along a street during the Victory Day parade in Moscow, Russia, on Wednesday, June 24, 2020.(Andrey Rudakov / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

If it expires, it expires” is a reasonable way to manage a week-old gallon of milk—not a treaty designed to stave off a potentially apocalyptic nuclear conflict between Russia and the US

And yet, this was President Trump’s response when asked about the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which lapses today. It was the last nuclear arms agreement between the two countries.

For the first time since the Cold War, we find ourselves in a world without constraints on nuclear proliferation among global superpowers. It is no wonder the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded by Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer in 1947, has shifted its symbolic Doomsday Clock to the closest it has ever been to midnight: just 85 seconds.

The expiration of New START marks the end of over five decades of continuous arms control efforts between Washington and Moscow. With the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)—called for by President Johnson in 1967 and culminating with President Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Brezhnev signing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972—the United States and the Soviet Union began to more openly dialogue for the sake of de-escalation.

President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987, banning a whole class of nuclear weapons entirely. In 1991, President Bush and Gorbachev agreed to the landmark Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), resulting in the disarmament of 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons over the next decade. A series of follow-up agreements eventually led to Presidents Obama and Medvedev signing New START in 2011, capping each side at 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads. That treaty was last renewed in 2021 by Presidents Biden and Putin.

These agreements are in no small part why the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons has fallen from its peak of 70,300 in 1986 to roughly 12,300 today.

But since the turn of the century, a once-bipartisan commitment to diplomacy has slowly been undermined by increasingly jingoistic Republican administrations. In 2002, John Bolton persuaded President George W. Bush to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the name of fighting terrorism. Trump doubled down on this doctrine during his first term, pulling the US out of the INF and the Open Skies Treaty.

The Nation Weekly

Fridays. A weekly digest of the best of our coverage.
By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You may unsubscribe or adjust your preferences at any time. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

But Trump II almost makes Trump I look like the Nobel Peace Prize winner he yearns to be. In addition to ditching New START, he has gutted the State Department of its nuclear diplomats and ordered the resumption of nuclear testing for the first time in more than thirty years. Surprise: Putin then threatened to do the same.

And this is to say nothing of Trump’s reckless posture toward foreign policy writ large. From abducting the president of Venezuela to threatening an invasion of Greenland, he seems hell-bent on alienating America’s allies and antagonizing our adversaries. As we return to a global landscape with no guardrails on man’s most dangerous weapons, Trump has made America the bull in the geopolitical china shop.

Our current foreign policy doctrine is so destructive that even America’s closest ally has taken the exceedingly rare step of speaking out against it. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the World Economic Forum last month, we have reached “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality.”

So what will it take to come back from the brink? The scientists behind the Doomsday Clock have issued their call to the relevant world leaders: Keep the dialogue of nuclear nonproliferation alive. End the vicious cycle of us versus them.

But short of a come-to-Jesus moment from the president—whose favorite Bible verse is “an eye for an eye”—the responsibility for salvaging what’s left will fall to the rest of us. It will take the courage of other leaders, an engaged media, and an informed citizenry to fight to keep the goal of disarmament and, eventually, abolition alive.

As the agreement’s expiration reminds us, time only marches forward. But the Doomsday Clock can be set back. Throughout the 1980s, millions around the world applied pressure on the superpowers by participating in anti-nuclear demonstrations. In 1987, the INF was signed—inspiring the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to wind its clock of catastrophe backwards. As the Bulletin itself put it in 1988, “protests yield progress.”

In 1990, they shifted the clock back even further, as the Iron Curtain fell. Then, too, in attributing the cause of humanity’s return to a safer world, the Bulletin cited global activism. And by 1991, in the wake of the START agreement, the Bulletin turned back the minute hand the furthest it had ever been, before or since: 17 minutes to midnight. (The Doomsday Clock’s founders designed it on a 15-minute scale.)

With the bevy of other disasters facing America and the world, it may seem impossible to recreate the degree of mass mobilization around nuclear disarmament that the Cold War era inspired. But as I heard former Soviet leader (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Mikhail Gorbachev say on many occasions: “If we don’t attempt what seems impossible, we will risk facing the unthinkable.”

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation, America’s leading source of progressive politics and culture. An expert on international affairs and US politics, she is an award-winning columnist and frequent contributor to The Guardian. Vanden Heuvel is the author of several books, including The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in the Age of Obama, and co-author (with Stephen F. Cohen) of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev’s Reformers.

More from The Nation

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is shown the driver's area on a FirstGroup bus at the bus station during a visit to Bath, England, Wednesday July 22, 2026.

Andy Burnham Is Not to Be Trusted Andy Burnham Is Not to Be Trusted

The UK’s new prime minister has promised sweeping change. But his first week in power saw him going down the same failed paths as his predecessors.

Evan Robins

Protesters in Tel Aviv call for an end to Israeli attacks on Gaza and the West Bank on Saturday, July 25.

Signs of Cautious Hope on the Israeli Left Signs of Cautious Hope on the Israeli Left

One interesting development on the left is the new joint Jewish-Arab “Place for All of Us” Party, founded by leaders of Standing Together.

Hillel Schenker

President Donald Trump meets with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office, on November 18, 2025.

The Saudi Nuclear Deal Is a Typical Trump Fiasco The Saudi Nuclear Deal Is a Typical Trump Fiasco

Yet again, the president trumpets a foreign-policy agreement steeped in recklessness, lies, and corruption.

Jeet Heer

Palestinians walk between destroyed buildings in Gaza City, Wednesday, June 3, 2026.

I Thought I Knew Gaza. Then I Went Back. I Thought I Knew Gaza. Then I Went Back.

After nearly three years, I finally returned to my homeland. I wasn’t prepared for what I found.

Athar Abu Samra

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, in Washington.

Marco Rubio’s Cuba Fantasies Are More Dangerous Than They Seem Marco Rubio’s Cuba Fantasies Are More Dangerous Than They Seem

Little Marco is a modern-day Joe McCarthy, brandishing a list of supposed Cuban influence agents.

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Ernesto Soberón Guzmán, Cuban ambassador to the United Nations, speaks to reporters in New York, Thursday, April 23, 2026.

Cuba Will Not Be Starved Into Submission Cuba Will Not Be Starved Into Submission

A Cuban diplomat talks about the human cost of the US blockade, Cuba’s economic liberalization, and the gains of the revolution that Havana says are not up for negotiation.

Q&A / Bhaskar Sunkara