Here’s what to know about Donald Trump’s comments on nuclear testing

Summary

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he has instructed the U.S. to restart testing of nuclear weapons, saying it should be done “on an equal basis” with other countries. The comment has raised immediate questions about who runs tests (the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration, not the Pentagon), what a test would involve and the geopolitical risks of restarting detonations after a more than 30-year pause. The U.S. last conducted a nuclear test in 1992 at the Nevada National Security Sites; preparing a single test today would likely take years and significant onsite work.

Key Points

Trump announced on Truth Social that testing would begin immediately, framed as a response to other countries’ testing programmes.
U.S. nuclear tests are administered by the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration, not the Defense Department.
The United States last detonated a nuclear device in 1992; restarting tests would require rebuilding capabilities and manpower at Nevada test sites.
Experts warn a U.S. test could trigger an international chain reaction, prompting other nuclear powers to resume testing and accelerating an arms race.
Russia and the U.S. together hold the vast majority of the world’s warheads — roughly 5,580 for Russia and 5,225 for the U.S. (including retired warheads) — with deployed and reserve breakdowns differing between sources.
Modernisation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent has been ongoing and is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion over the coming decade.

Content summary

Trump’s statement came just before a planned meeting with China’s Xi Jinping and was prompted by recent Russian, Chinese and North Korean moves to expand or test nuclear-capable systems. The announcement created confusion about procedure and authority because historical and legal responsibility for testing sits with civilian Energy Department agencies. The article outlines historical context — including the nearly 1,030 U.S. test detonations from 1945–1992 and the shift from atmospheric to underground testing — and emphasises logistical hurdles: tests in Nevada once required tens of thousands of personnel and multi-year planning.

Context and relevance

Global nuclear tensions have risen as Russia, China and North Korea develop and test new systems. A U.S. test would not just be technical; it would be profoundly political, with potentially destabilising consequences for non-proliferation norms and international security. The story matters for defence policy watchers, diplomats and anyone tracking the balance of strategic deterrence and arms-control regimes.

Why should I read this?

Short version: this isn’t just headline-grabbing bluster. If the U.S. actually moves toward testing, it changes the game — legally, technically and geopolitically. Read this to get the essentials fast so you’re not left guessing what a single social-media post could mean for global security and policy debates.

Author note (style)

Punchy and to the point: the piece explains the who, how and why — and why a test would be a huge deal. If you follow defence, diplomacy or election-watch politics, it’s worth digging into the full story.