President Trump’s suggestion to restart nuclear testing faced uncertainty this week after Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced that the U.S. would not resume explosive tests, which were last done in the 1990s.
“The experiments we’re discussing are more about system tests—noncritical explosions,” Wright explained in an interview with Fox News on Sunday.
This statement contrasted with Trump’s comments on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” where he claimed that other nations were secretly conducting underground nuclear tests and suggested the U.S. would follow suit.
When questioned by Norah O’Donnell about America potentially resuming nuclear detonations after over three decades, Trump mentioned Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan. “They’re right when they say they’re going to test nuclear weapons like other countries,” he said.
There hasn’t been any verified evidence of a foreign country conducting explosive nuclear tests since North Korea’s last one in 2017. Claims have been made about Russia and China possibly carrying out low-yield nuclear tests, according to CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
What Trump envisions seems to be a comprehensive test similar to those repeatedly conducted at the Nevada Test Site during the Cold War, a practice North Korea alone has continued since the 1990s.
This situation highlights ongoing debates about whether the U.S. should stick with its current stance or reactivate its Nevada test site to bolster its nuclear capabilities.
Robert O’Brien, who served as national security adviser during Trump’s first term, wrote previously about the necessity of the U.S. maintaining superiority in nuclear capabilities over Russia and China, stressing the importance of testing new weapons to ensure their reliability.
Opposing this is Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, who argues that restarting nuclear tests could trigger others to do the same. “It would set off a chain reaction of nuclear tests, which could actually be more advantageous for the U.S. given that other powers have less experience with nuclear weapon design and testing,” he remarked.
Kimbal also contested the idea that real-world tests are essential for confirming the effectiveness of U.S. nuclear arsenals, suggesting that Vice President J.D. Vance misunderstands how the U.S. maintains its nuclear weapon systems.
Vance recently defended Trump’s initial call for a nuclear test, emphasizing the need to ensure that the existing nuclear arsenal functions correctly over time.
The White House has so far referred to Trump’s public statements without providing specific responses to individual questions on the matter, nor has the Department of Energy commented.
Bob Peters, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, shared Vance’s and O’Brien’s views, likening U.S. nuclear tools to an unused classic car. He suggested that tests should serve as a diplomatic lever, even if they are not ultimately employed.
In his view, such a test could convey a serious message to adversaries about the U.S. willingness to act under extreme circumstances.
Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted similarly to Trump’s proposal, indicating that Russia would also consider resuming nuclear tests only if the U.S. did first. He mentioned that officials should evaluate U.S. actions to shape responses.
In response to Trump’s claims, China has denied conducting any nuclear tests and has urged the U.S. to contribute positively to international nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
Pakistan has also refuted Trump’s assertions, emphasizing that it did not initiate nuclear testing and would not be the first to conduct tests in the future.
Kimball noted that other countries have been processing the implications of Trump’s statements and preparing their responses, adding that Trump may face significant hurdles if he pushes for testing.
He stressed that the president cannot simply order tests to resume spontaneously; it will require considerable time, funding, and expertise in fields like engineering and physics. Congress could potentially block funding for necessary infrastructure for nuclear tests, and legal challenges could arise on environmental grounds as well.
The Nevada Democratic Party has already raised concerns regarding Trump’s intentions, expressing their outrage over the suggestion to resume explosive nuclear testing.
The congressional delegation from Nevada stated that contemplating detonating a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil is a significant betrayal of scientific integrity and public safety.
While Peters acknowledges the seriousness of these concerns, he argues that maintaining nuclear testing capability remains necessary given current global threats from nations like North Korea and Russia and the rapid military advancements from China. He optimistically believes that preparations for a nuclear test could take two to three years.
