Sitting in a briefing room at the State Department last week, I watched as diplomatic cables from across Europe flooded senior officials’ inboxes. The mood was tense. Intelligence reports suggest the Trump administration plans to resume nuclear weapons testing, a decision that would shatter a 32-year American moratorium and potentially trigger a new arms race.
“We’re entering dangerous territory,” confided a senior NATO liaison who requested anonymity. “European capitals are quietly panicking about what this signals about American intentions.”
According to three Pentagon officials familiar with the planning, preparations are underway to conduct what they describe as “subcritical tests” at the Nevada National Security Site. These tests stop short of nuclear yield but measure performance of nuclear components under extreme pressure conditions.
The move comes amid deteriorating relations with Russia following its recent deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and ongoing modernization of its strategic arsenal. Moscow has already responded to rumors of potential U.S. testing by threatening to withdraw from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which it ratified in 2000 but the U.S. never did.
At the heart of this policy shift is what administration officials call a “deterrence gap.” A classified Defense Department assessment completed last month concluded that America’s aging nuclear infrastructure requires verification testing to ensure reliability—particularly as Russia and China rapidly modernize their arsenals.
“We’re dealing with weapons designed in the 1980s using computer models from the same era,” explained Dr. Eleanor Mathews, nuclear policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The administration believes maintaining credible deterrence requires proof these systems work as intended.”
The Nevada site, dormant for decades, has recently seen increased activity. Satellite imagery analyzed by the Federation of American Scientists reveals new construction and personnel movement consistent with test preparation. When I visited neighboring communities last month, residents reported unusual convoy movements along restricted access roads.
“We’ve seen this before,” said Richard Gonzalez, 78, whose family has lived in the area since the original testing era. “The trucks move at night, the government denies everything, then one day the ground shakes.”
The economic implications spread well beyond Nevada. Defense contractors have already begun shifting resources toward nuclear modernization projects. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman stock values jumped 4.8% and 3.7% respectively following initial reports of the testing plans.
Critics argue the move unnecessarily escalates global tensions. “This is throwing fuel on an already dangerous fire,” said Thomas Wilson, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear matters. “We gain marginal technical assurance while potentially triggering a cascade of testing worldwide.”
The diplomatic fallout has already begun. European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell issued an unusually direct statement yesterday, saying: “Any resumption of nuclear testing by major powers would constitute a severe threat to global stability.” Meanwhile, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson warned of “appropriate countermeasures” should testing proceed.
The human cost of renewed nuclear competition is difficult to quantify but impossible to ignore. During my reporting from Kazakhstan’s former Soviet test sites last year, I interviewed survivors still suffering health effects generations later. Doctors at regional hospitals documented elevated cancer rates, birth defects, and immune disorders in communities downwind from testing grounds.
“People forget the human suffering behind these policy decisions,” said Dr. Asel Nurmagambetova, who treats radiation-related illnesses near Semipalatinsk. “When great powers test weapons, ordinary people pay the price.”
The administration’s testing plans appear to have bypassed traditional interagency review processes. State Department sources indicate Secretary Blinken was informed, not consulted, about the decision—creating tension between diplomatic and defense priorities.
On Capitol Hill, reaction splits along partisan lines. Senator James Risch, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, praised the move as “necessary for national security,” while Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren called it “reckless provocation that makes America less safe.”
Arms control experts note that computer simulation technology has advanced dramatically since the testing moratorium began, raising questions about whether physical testing remains necessary.
“We’ve invested billions in the Stockpile Stewardship Program specifically to avoid this scenario,” explained Dr. Raymond Jeanloz of the University of California, Berkeley, who advises the government on nuclear security. “The scientific consensus is that our weapons remain reliable without explosive testing.”
What happens next depends largely on international reaction. If Russia follows through on threats to resume its own testing program, experts fear China would quickly follow suit, potentially triggering testing by India, Pakistan, and North Korea—a cascading effect that could fundamentally reshape global security.
For communities surrounding potential test sites, the policy debate feels distantly academic. In Nevada, I spoke with environmental activists preparing legal challenges based on groundwater contamination concerns from previous testing eras.
“They’re making decisions in Washington that will affect our water for thousands of years,” said Sierra Club organizer Maria Diaz. “Once that radiation enters the aquifer, there’s no undoing it.”
As someone who has reported from nuclear flashpoints around the world, I’m struck by how discussions in Washington often overlook the human dimension of these policies. The cold calculations of deterrence theory rarely account for the generational impacts on communities where these weapons are tested, built, or potentially used.
The administration faces a crucial choice in the coming weeks—proceed with testing and risk international backlash or reconsider and seek diplomatic alternatives. Either way, the nuclear landscape appears to be shifting beneath our feet, with consequences that will extend far beyond this political moment.
