Trump’s disastrous nuclear policies once held a glimmer of hope

On Feb. 13, President Donald Trump did something truly rare — he made sense.

In an Oval Office press meeting, for the first time in decades, a sitting president openly discussed nuclear disarmament: “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many… You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons,” he said.

He’s right. China and India have unconditional no-first-use pledges in place. So did Russia until we continued to expand our already insane nuclear arsenal and exit such arms control agreements as the ABM Treaty and INF Treaty. The United States refused to come to the table. That’s why Trump’s expressed desire to return to negotiations was so promising.

Returning to negotiations refers to multilateral nuclear reduction agreements on the premise of minimum effective deterrence.

The commemoration of the 80^th anniversary of Hiroshima and its deadly toll this past week gives us an opportunity to understand just what is at stake. That devastating first use of the atomic bomb killed at least 70,000 people instantly, a legacy of tragedy the world will not forget.

Alas, Trump’s initial promise of nuclear disarmament was short-lived. And what has actually happened since this unexpected moment of clarity from a leader who thrives on chaos? More chaos. Trump violated the war powers clause in launching a military strike against Iran’s nuclear bases, and now, he refuses to rule out more strikes. Even if he deterred Iran’s nuclear program, it put the U.S. directly at odds with other nuclear powers. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has even come out to say that other countries would simply provide Iran with nuclear warheads.Through his actions, Trump pushed us closer to the brink of nuclear war once more. The U.S. war machine and its many benefactors will stoke this, spurring on a new arms race to line their pockets.

The fact is, more bombs will not solve nuclear proliferation — not by building them, not by hoarding them, and certainly not by using them on other countries. The president must make a choice: Protect our nation and the world, or instigate nuclear Armageddon.

The U.S. could take the lead on denuclearization, cut back our bloated military budget, finally sign a no-first-use pledge, and actually make the world safer. Or we could keep feeding the weapons manufacturers, spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon while ignoring the fact that our biggest threats — climate change, poverty, and access to health care — can’t be solved with bombs.

More from MS NOW Daily

Must reads from Today's list

Congress’ restrictions on hemp-derived THC is a short-sighted overreaction

Jeremy Berke

Trump’s reticence around reporters is a sign that he’s rattled by the Epstein crisis

Zeeshan Aleem

Play

World closest to ‘nuclear precipice’ since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, says historian Garrett Graff August 9, 2025 / 11:49

But right now, we’re on the wrong path — the path of excessive militarization and the risk of total annihilation. The path that mortgages our environment, livelihoods, and our souls to feed the insatiable war profiteers.

Eighty years ago, one nuclear bomb incinerated over 100,000 people in Hiroshima. Right now, the U.S. has the equivalent of 50,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. And the Pentagon is spending $2 trillion on a whole new generation of nuclear weapons.

The time of mutually assured destruction between two nuclear superpowers is over. The last thing we need is a new nuclear arms race. But that’s what our corrupt Congress and war profiteers are betting on.

Should Trump decide to take the denuclearization path, it could change the very fabric of America. Imagine the impact of just 15% of the Pentagon’s budget going toward lead-free pipes and safe drinking water, affordable housing, and universal health care.

It could single-handedly revitalize the American dream. Would we really be less secure if we spent only $850 billion a year preparing for war instead of our current $1 trillion?