The Evolution of U.S. Nuclear Deterrent Policy Under the Trump Administration and Its Implications for a Potential Alliance with Russia

Introduction

The Trump administration’s approach to nuclear deterrence and arms control has entered a transformative phase, marked by ambitions to engage Russia and China in denuclearization talks while navigating tensions over Ukraine, NATO alliances, and global nonproliferation frameworks.

FAF reviews and analyzes the potential shifts in U.S. nuclear policy amid growing diplomatic overtures to Russia, examining the risks of alliance realignment, the future of arms control treaties, and the cascading effects on global security architectures.

Historical Context of U.S.-Russia Nuclear Diplomacy

The Legacy of New START and Its Looming Expiration

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), set to expire in February 2026, has long served as the cornerstone of bilateral nuclear arms control between the U.S. and Russia.

The treaty limits each nation to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 delivery systems, with verification mechanisms ensuring compliance. However, Russia’s suspension of participation in 2023 over U.S. support for Ukraine and the lack of progress on trilateral talks with China have left the treaty’s future uncertain.

President Trump’s recent calls for a renewed dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping aim to revive denuclearization efforts. Still, disagreements over the scope of negotiations persist. Russia insists on including France and the U.K. in future talks, while the U.S. prefers a trilateral format.

The Biden-Trump Policy Divide

The Biden administration’s adherence to traditional alliances and support for Ukraine contrasts sharply with Trump’s transactional approach.

Biden prioritized maintaining New START and expanding its provisions, whereas Trump has criticized the treaty as “unfair” and advocated for broader reductions tied to defense spending cuts.

This ideological divide underscores the fragility of bipartisan consensus on nuclear policy, particularly as Trump seeks to leverage arms control as a bargaining chip in broader geopolitical negotiations.

Trump’s Denuclearization Agenda: Ambitions and Obstacles

Trilateral Talks with Russia and China

Trump’s proposal for trilateral denuclearization talks represents a departure from decades of bilateral U.S.-Russia arms control. During a February 2025 Oval Office press conference, Trump argued that “there’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons” and suggested halving military budgets across the U.S., Russia, and China.

However, China has historically resisted formal arms control participation, citing the disproportionate size of U.S. and Russian arsenals. In 2020, U.S. efforts to bring China into New START negotiations failed. Beijing has reiterated that Washington and Moscow must first make “drastic and substantive cuts” before other nuclear states join.

The Ukraine Conflict as a Geopolitical Roadblock

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has complicated Trump’s outreach. Moscow has conditioned nuclear diplomacy on the cessation of U.S. military aid to Kyiv, while European leaders fear a U.S.-Russia détente could legitimize Russian territorial gains.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s calls for NATO nuclear sharing highlight the precarious security environment, with Poland and South Korea also considering independent atomic programs in response to perceived U.S. retrenchment.

Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have held preliminary talks with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia. Still, European allies remain skeptical of any agreement that undermines Ukrainian sovereignty.

Defense Spending Cuts and Their Impact on Nuclear Modernization

The Push for Budget Reductions

Trump’s vision of slashing U.S. defense spending by 50% and redirecting funds to domestic priorities has raised concerns about the viability of nuclear modernization programs.

The current U.S. nuclear arsenal relies on aging delivery systems, such as Minuteman III ICBMs and B-52 bombers, with modernization costs projected to exceed $1.5 trillion over 30 years. Trump’s assertion that “we could destroy the world 50 times over” reflects a belief that existing arsenals suffice for deterrence, but experts warn that delayed modernization could cede technological advantages to Russia and China.

The Industrial Base Dilemma

The U.S. defense-industrial base, already strained by Ukraine-related arms production, faces further challenges under budget cuts. Russia and China, meanwhile, have accelerated nuclear modernization: Russia’s Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle and China’s DF-41 ICBM exemplify advancements that could outpace U.S. capabilities.

Kyle Balzer of the American Enterprise Institute argues that Trump should emulate Reagan’s “peace through strength” model by pairing arms control with credible modernization, which requires sustained congressional funding.

NATO’s Evolving Role and European Responses

Nuclear Sharing and Alliance Cohesion

Trump’s skepticism of NATO’s value has prompted calls for greater European burden-sharing.

One proposal involves integrating Poland into NATO’s nuclear-sharing program, which currently stations U.S. B61 gravity bombs in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

Such a move could counterbalance Russia’s deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus but risks escalating tensions with Moscow. French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion to extend France’s atomic umbrella to EU allies further reflects European anxieties over U.S. commitments.

The Proliferation Domino Effect

Trump’s “America First” rhetoric has inadvertently incentivized nuclear proliferation. Former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and South Korean lawmakers have floated the idea of indigenous atomic programs, while Taiwan faces renewed pressure from China’s military buildup.

Jon Wolfsthal of the Federation of American Scientists notes that extended U.S. deterrence has prevented proliferation since the Cold War. Still, its erosion could trigger a cascade of new nuclear states.

The Risks of a U.S.-Russia Strategic Partnership

Aligning with Russia: Implications for Global Security

Trump’s outreach to Putin has sparked fears of a strategic realignment that undermines NATO and nonproliferation norms. The disbanding of the Foreign Influence Task Force and Task Force Kleptocapture, which targeted Russian oligarchs, signals a softer stance on Moscow’s malign activities.

Historian Tim Snyder warns that a Russian victory in Ukraine could embolden nuclear aspirants worldwide as nations lose faith in U.S. security guarantees.

The New Cold War Calculus

A U.S.-Russia condominium on nuclear policy could isolate China and fracture global arms control efforts.

However, Russia’s insistence on including European nuclear powers in talks suggests Putin aims to dilute U.S. influence rather than pursue mutual reductions.

Meanwhile, China’s rapid arsenal expansion—projected to match U.S.-Russian levels by 2030—complicates Trump’s denuclearization goals.

Conclusion

Navigating a Fractured Deterrence Landscape

The Trump administration’s nuclear policy hinges on reconciling competing priorities: engaging Russia in arms control while maintaining alliance cohesion, cutting defense budgets without compromising modernization, and preventing proliferation amid declining trust in U.S. leadership.

The expiration of New START in 2026 looms as a critical juncture, requiring either a breakthrough in trilateral negotiations or a return to unconstrained arms racing.

As Macron’s nuclear umbrella proposal and Poland’s NATO integration debates illustrate, European allies are preparing for a post-American security order.

For Trump, the challenge lies in balancing “America First” pragmatism with the destabilizing consequences of a nuclear multipolar world.