The world has been watching President Donald Trump’s every move closely since his return to the White House in January, and the implications of his presidency for global arms control loom large. The New START Treaty, the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, is set to expire in February 2026. The treaty, which places limits on Washington and Moscow’s strategic nuclear arsenals and provides verification mechanisms, faces an uncertain future under Trump’s leadership. While President Trump has recently signaled his desire to meet with Russia and China to work on nuclear arms reduction, his administration was not as focused on arms control initiatives during his previous term. Additionally, the transactional approach adopted by the Trump administration on other international issues in this second term raises concerns about whether arms control negotiations would meet a similar fate or be altogether abandoned. If New START is not renewed, its demise would carry profound symbolic weight, marking the end of the last major arms control treaty between the world’s two largest nuclear powers and signaling a definitive pivot from collaboration to competition in nuclear policy. If this comes to pass, it will have ripple effects across the world, significantly undermining multilateral efforts in maintaining global and regional strategic stability, especially in South Asia.
Trump’s Arms Control Record
During Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a landmark agreement dating back to the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the then Russian Federation, that eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. Then-Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, cited Russian violations as the reason for U.S. withdrawal. Washington’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty officially lifted any restrictions on the deployment and development of intermediate-range missiles by both sides. And Russia responded by ramping up its production of intermediate-range missile systems, including the 9M729, significantly increasing the vulnerability of European cities to potential strikes. The loss of the treaty, rather than either side exploring diplomatic enforcement, undermined decades of arms control progress, creating an arms race atmosphere and increasing the risk of miscalculations leading to unintended escalation.
If New START is not renewed, its demise would carry profound symbolic weight, marking the end of the last major arms control treaty between the world’s two largest nuclear powers and signaling a definitive pivot from collaboration to competition in nuclear policy.
Trump had also expressed skepticism toward extending New START in his previous term, demanding the inclusion of China in future agreements rather than building on New START’s legacy of bilateral negotiation. While China has undertaken nuclear modernization and significantly enhanced its military capabilities in recent years, its nuclear arsenal remains significantly smaller than that of the United States and Russia and this disparity in stockpiles would have made trilateral negotiations with Beijing impractical. However, Trump pushed to include China in the negotiations, which ended up delaying progress and nearly causing the treaty to lapse. The Biden administration extended it for an additional five years upon taking the White House in 2021.
Even in South Asia, President Trump’s administration largely deprioritized substantive engagement on arms control in his first term, despite the region’s volatility. There were no significant public efforts to encourage confidence-building measures (CBMs) between India and Pakistan, though Trump offered to help negotiate the Kashmir dispute on more than one occasion. Instead, his administration deepened strategic ties with India, ramping up military cooperation through agreements like the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) to strengthen intelligence sharing, and emphasizing India’s key role in its Indo-Pacific strategy. Washington’s alignment with New Delhi in these ways was seen in Islamabad as emboldening India’s military modernization, which has implications for regional arms dynamics.
Uncharted Waters and the Risks of Unilateralism
Arms control agreements have long played an important role in mitigating the risk of nuclear conflict, relying on cooperation and shared commitments among states. Bilateral treaties like New START between the United States and Russia aim to reduce nuclear arsenals and maintain strategic stability through direct negotiations, while broader arms control frameworks play a critical role in preventing proliferation.
Although President Trump’s first term was characterized by a unilateral approach towards arms control, recent developments suggest a potential shift toward a more diplomatic strategy. For instance, the appointment of Steve Witkoff to lead nuclear diplomacy with Iran indicates a possible recalibration, combining diplomatic engagement with strategic pressure. Additionally, President Trump has signaled openness to arms reduction talks with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping, though details remain uncertain. This suggests that a second Trump administration’s approach to arms control is not yet fully defined and could diverge from Trump’s first-term policies. At the same time, concerns remain that unilateralism may persist or even intensify, particularly given policy proposals outlined in Project 2025, a conservative strategic blueprint that advocates for aggressive U.S. nuclear modernization, including the deployment of hypersonic weapons and next-generation nuclear missile systems. The document also reflects deep skepticism toward formal arms control frameworks.
The New START Treaty, which primarily focuses on limiting deployed strategic warheads and establishing robust verification and monitoring mechanisms, has been an important component in maintaining strategic stability between the United States and Russia. Signed in 2010, the treaty caps each country at 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and includes comprehensive inspection and data exchange measures to ensure compliance and build trust. If Trump allows New START to expire or demands a renegotiation on his terms, both Washington and Moscow could potentially increase their nuclear arsenals, renewing a dangerous arms race. The absence of verification mechanisms could create opacity, heightening the risk of miscalculation during crises.
The possible collapse of New START represents both continuity and escalation in U.S. arms control policy trends. While it would signal a dramatic shift in the specific bilateral dynamic with Russia, it would also reflect a longer-term trend of declining U.S. commitment to global arms control mechanisms. This trend has been evident through actions such as Washington’s continued lack of ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty since the 1990s, the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and Washington’s exit from the INF Treaty under the Trump administration. Each of these steps chipped away at the multilateral and bilateral frameworks that underpin arms control, particularly when paired with the U.S. national security state’s emphasis on nuclear modernization. The end of New START would reinforce the perception that the United States is shifting away from arms reduction toward the modernization and expansion of its nuclear arsenal. This move would undermine global trust in multilateral agreements and embolden other nations to develop their own nuclear capabilities, unraveling decades of progress in nonproliferation.
Implications for South Asia
A potential erosion of the U.S.-Russian arms control frameworks carries profound implications for South Asia as well, compounding regional rivalries. While New START is a bilateral treaty, its collapse would signal a broader decline in global arms control norms, indirectly affecting South Asia. The loss of this framework could embolden major powers, and India, to further prioritize nuclear modernization without fear of international scrutiny or normative pressure. For Pakistan, this would exacerbate an already precarious strategic environment, compelling it to enhance its own deterrence capabilities in response to India’s expanding arsenal.
Pakistan has consistently highlighted concerns about the selective application of arms control principles. While Islamabad’s missile programs face international scrutiny and are now subject to U.S. sanctions, India’s strategic advancements are strengthened by growing U.S.-India defense and technology cooperation. This includes recent offers of advanced platforms like the F-35 to India, co-development projects in missile systems, and increasing collaboration in space under the U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (now renamed as Transforming Relations Utilizing Strategic Technologies (TRUST)). This perceived asymmetry undermines regional stability and can compel Pakistan to develop commensurate capabilities in response.
The loss of this framework could embolden major powers, and India, to further prioritize nuclear modernization without fear of international scrutiny or normative pressure. For Pakistan, this would exacerbate an already precarious strategic environment, compelling it to enhance its own deterrence capabilities in response to India’s expanding arsenal.
Still, President Trump’s recent statements on potential arms control diplomacy suggest some uncertainty regarding whether his second administration would fully continue a unilateral approach or adopt a selective engagement strategy. Trump’s recent overtures to Putin could fundamentally reshape the Washington-Moscow relationship and consider accommodations on arms control. If Washington reassesses its role in global arms control, this could open pathways for renewed strategic dialogues, reducing tensions not only between the United States and Russia but also indirectly impacting nuclear dynamics in South Asia.
Ultimately, Trump’s return to the presidency raises significant questions about the trajectory of global arms control. While his first term leaned toward unilateralism, evolving strategic conditions and diplomatic calculations could influence a different approach. For South Asia, where security dynamics remain fragile, a global shift away from multilateral arms control frameworks risks intensifying tensions as states may feel compelled to act independently. This is a pivotal moment, in which the international community can prevent escalation by prioritizing strategic dialogue, working to rebuild trust in arms control mechanisms, and collaborating to uphold regional and global stability.
Also Read: What Will a Breakdown in the Global Moratorium on Nuclear Testing Mean for South Asia?
***
Image 1: Kremlin.ru via Wikimedia Commons
Image 2: Shankar S. via Flickr
