Congress recently passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open. The legislation includes several anomalies, or funding adjustments, beyond the standard temporary funding extension typical of a continuing resolution — among them a dangerous decision to reduce nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
That change involved the reallocation of $185 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy. Programs included nuclear weapons research, development, and production activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration.
This shift undermines critical nonproliferation efforts and represents a misguided approach that jeopardizes national security. Increasing funding for weapons of mass destruction, which realistically no one can use, offers diminishing returns, serving only to escalate global tensions and foster instability.
The Department of Energy’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs play a pivotal role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and radiological materials. For example, the Office of Global Material Security works with international partners to secure nuclear and radioactive materials, preventing them from falling into the hands of nonstate actors who could use them against the United States. The Office of International Nuclear Safeguards ensures countries comply with their commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency, verifying that nuclear materials are not diverted to weapons programs.
The INSTAR Program — through partnership with the US advanced nuclear energy industry — facilitates the export of American reactor designs and technologies, promoting safe nuclear energy use globally. Redirecting funds from these essential programs to further bolster an already massive and expensive nuclear arsenal only serves to hamper nonproliferation efforts.
All this nonproliferation programming helps facilitate the US commitment to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons. Fully funding these programs is essential to maintaining American global leadership in international nonproliferation efforts.
*
According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, as of September 2023, the US possessed a stockpile of 3,748 nuclear warheads. Of these, the Federation of American Scientists independently estimates that 1,770 are deployed and roughly 1,930 are in the reserve stockpile. On top of that, another 1,477 warheads are no longer in use and are awaiting dismantlement, for a total of about 5,177 nuclear warheads. According to the Arms Control Association, “the size of the current US nuclear arsenal is more than enough to deter enemy nuclear attacks even if adversary arsenals grow. The use of just a fraction of the US nuclear force would lead to mass destruction on an unprecedented scale.”
Given that estimates figure the US already will spend an average of $75 billion every year over the next 10 years sustaining and upgrading every part of the nuclear arsenal, cutting vital nonproliferation programs simply isn’t necessary. What’s more, redirecting funds from nonproliferation efforts toward nuclear weapons activities directly contradicts President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the existential dangers and immense financial cost of maintaining nuclear weapons arsenals.
All this nonproliferation programming helps facilitate the US commitment to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons.
Since his second term began, Trump has consistently highlighted the existential threat nuclear weapons pose. In a March 9 interview, he emphasized that nuclear weapons are the greatest danger to humanity, capable of ending the world instantly.
The president also criticized the immense financial investments countries spend on maintaining nuclear arsenals: “We spend a lot of money on nuclear missiles, nuclear weapons. The level of destruction is beyond anything you can even imagine. It’s bad that everyone has to spend all this money on something that, if it’s used, it’s probably the end of the world.”
*
The decision by Congress to divert funds from nonproliferation programs to weapons development contradicts this stance. If nuclear weapons are indeed an existential threat and a financial burden, increasing investment in them while underfunding programs designed to prevent their spread is counterproductive.
Diplomacy remains the most effective tool for reducing nuclear risks. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limits the US and Russia’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems, will expire in February 2026. Pursuing a follow-up treaty is essential to maintain strategic stability and prevent a renewed arms race. Securing this new agreement should be the top priority for any lawmaker concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons. Engaging in arms control negotiations, such as the denuclearization talks that Trump has proposed with Russia and China, can curtail the number of nuclear weapons globally but would also build trust between nations, reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings and potential conflicts.
Maintaining investments in American nonproliferation programs complements arms control efforts by ensuring nuclear materials do not fall into the wrong hands. Congress should align its budgetary decisions with the recognized threats nuclear weapons pose. This necessitates robust support for nonproliferation initiatives and a renewed commitment to diplomatic efforts, ensuring a safer future for all.
