Donald Trump has announced that the United States will not extend the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, bringing to an end the last remaining pillar of the post-Cold War arms control architecture that has governed superpower relations for more than three decades.
The decision, first reported by Politico, marks a fundamental shift in nuclear weapons policy and raises immediate concerns about an unconstrained arms race among nuclear powers. New START, signed in 2010, limits both nations to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and provides for mutual inspections.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The original START treaty was signed in 1991 as the Soviet Union collapsed, followed by START II in 1993, which was never implemented. The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty of 2002 gave way to New START in 2010, which was extended in 2021 for five years. That extension expires in 2026.
The End of an Era
Without New START, there will be no legally binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972. Arms control experts warn this creates dangerous uncertainty at a moment when Russia has suspended its participation in the treaty's inspection regime and China is rapidly expanding its nuclear forces.
The treaty's inspection provisions, though suspended by Moscow in 2023, provided the framework for transparency and verification that successive administrations viewed as essential to strategic stability. The absence of such mechanisms increases the risk of miscalculation.
Strategic Implications
The decision comes as relations between Washington and Moscow remain at their lowest point since the Cold War, with the war in Ukraine entering its third year. While Russia has repeatedly violated arms control commitments, previous U.S. administrations maintained that engagement on nuclear issues served American interests even amid broader conflicts.
Arms control advocates argue that the collapse of New START removes critical constraints on nuclear competition at a time when multiple nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. China is projected to possess 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, up from approximately 500 today. North Korea continues expanding its nuclear program, and Iran has advanced its enrichment capabilities.
Some defense analysts support allowing the treaty to lapse, arguing that it constrained American flexibility while Russia violated its terms and China remained outside any arms limitation framework. They contend that a new approach is needed for a multipolar nuclear landscape.
Historical Context
I covered the signing of New START in Prague in 2010, when Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev committed to "reset" relations between the two powers. That optimism has long since evaporated. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty collapsed in 2019 after years of Russian violations. The Open Skies Treaty ended in 2020 when the United States withdrew.
Now, with New START's demise, the entire edifice of bilateral nuclear arms control has been dismantled. What emerges in its place remains unclear. The strategic stability talks that once accompanied these treaties have ceased. The communication channels that helped prevent crises have atrophied.
The world is entering uncharted territory in nuclear relations, with fewer guardrails than at any time in the modern era. Whether this leads to a new framework or simply to unconstrained competition will define global security for decades to come.
