SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arms control association
Rubio Confirms End of New START, Sparking Calls for Nuclear Talks With Russia, China
"Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," said one campaigner.
Feb 04, 2026
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday implicitly confirmed that New START—a key arms control treaty between the United States and Russia—will expire Thursday, prompting renewed demands for what one group called "a more coherent approach from the Trump administration" toward nuclear nonproliferation.
Asked about the impending expiration of New START during a Wednesday press conference, Rubio said he didn't "have any announcement" on the matter, and that President Donald Trump "will opine on it later."
"Obviously, the president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile," Rubio said.
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳 Secretary of State Marco Rubio:
I don't have any announcement on New START right now. I think the President will opine on it later.
The President has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that… pic.twitter.com/8pxi3bfdsy
— Visioner (@visionergeo) February 4, 2026
New START, signed in 2010, committed the United States and Russia to halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers in their arsenals. While the treaty did not limit the size of the countries' actual nuclear arsenals, proponents pointed to its robust verification regime and other transparency features as mutually beneficial highlights of the agreement.
“We have known that New START would end for 15 years, but no one has shown the necessary leadership to be prepared for its expiration,” said John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former longtime State Department official.
“The treaty limited the number of nuclear weapons the United States and Russia could have, but perhaps more importantly, New START also provided each country with unprecedented insights into the other’s arsenal so that Washington and Moscow could make decisions based on real information rather than speculation," Erath added.
The last remaining major treaty limiting the world's two largest nuclear arsenals expires Feb. 5. Does this mean the end of nuclear arms control? Not necessarily. Read our statement.armscontrolcenter.org/statement-on...
[image or embed]
— Nukes of Hazard (@nukesofhazard.bsky.social) February 4, 2026 at 2:04 PM
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Wednesday that "the end of New START requires a more coherent approach from the Trump administration."
"If President Trump and Secretary Rubio are serious, they should make a serious proposal for bilateral (not trilateral) talks with Beijing," he asserted. "Despite Trump’s talk about involving China in nuclear negotiations, there is no indication that Trump or his team have taken the time to propose risk reduction or arms control talks with China since returning to office in 2025."
Kimball continued:
Furthermore, there is no reason why the United States and Russia should not and cannot continue, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin suggested on September 22, to respect the central limits of New START and begin the hard work of negotiating a new framework agreement involving verifiable limits on strategic, intermediate-range, and short-range nuclear weapons, as well as strategic missile defenses.
At the same time, if he is serious about involving China in “denuclearization” talks, he could and should invite [Chinese President Xi Jinping] when they meet later this year, to agree to regular bilateral talks on risk reduction and arms control involving senior Chinese and US officials.
"With the end of New START, Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," Kimball added.
Erath lamented that "with New START’s expiration, we have not only lost unprecedented verification measures that our military and decision-makers depended on, but we have ended more than five decades of painstaking diplomacy that successfully avoided nuclear catastrophe."
"Agreements preceding New START helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War,"
he noted. "Now, both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War."
Last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board advanced its symbolic Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global thermonuclear annihilation, citing developments including failure to extend New START, China's growing arsenal, and Russian weapons tests—to which Trump has vowed to respond in kind.
"The good news is," said Erath, is that "the end of New START does not have to mean the end of nuclear arms control."
"While New START can’t be extended beyond today, Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could decide to respect the numerical limits the treaty set on nuclear arsenals," he explained. "They could also resume the treaty’s data exchanges and on-site inspections, in addition to implementing verification measures from other previous arms control treaties."
"Further, they could instruct their administrations to begin immediate talks on a new treaty to cover existing and novel systems and potentially bring in other nuclear powers, like China," Erath continued. "Meanwhile, Congress could—and should—fund nonproliferation and global monitoring efforts while refusing to fund dangerous new nuclear weapons systems."
Last December, US Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) reintroduced the bicameral Hastening Arms Limitation Talks (HALT) Act, "legislation outlining a vision for a 21st century freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons."
"The Doomsday Clock is at 85 seconds to midnight," Markey—who co-chairs the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group—said Wednesday ahead of a press conference with HALT Act co-sponsors. "We need to replace New START now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump to Sidestep Cold War Arms Control Treaty to Sell More Drones: Report
The policy shift—which began during the first Trump administration—came after lobbying from US drone makers and amid stiff competition from Chinese, Israeli, and Turkish manufacturers.
Sep 05, 2025
After years of lobbying from US weapons makers, President Donald Trump is reportedly set to implement his first-term reinterpretation of a Cold War-era arms control treaty in order to sell heavy attack drones to countries including Saudi Arabia, according to a report published Friday.
In July 2020, Trump announced that his administration would reclassify unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with flight speeds under 500 miles per hour—including General Atomics' MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper and Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk—as exempt from certain restrictions under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Signed by the United States in 1987 during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the 35-nation MTCR "seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems" for such weapons, as the US State Department website explains.
The end of Trump's first term limited his first administration's implementation of the MTCR policy shift, which was not continued under former President Joe Biden, who adopted a somewhat stricter stance on arms exports to some gross human violators including Saudi Arabia, but not others—most notably Israel.
Now, a US official and four people familiar with the president's plan tell Reuters that Trump is preparing to complete the MTCR revision, a move that "would unlock the sale of more than 100 MQ-9 drones to Saudi Arabia, which the kingdom requested in the spring of this year and could be part of a $142 billion arms deal announced in May."
As Reuters reported:
Under the current interpretation of the MTCR, the sale of many military drones is subject to a "strong presumption of denial" unless a compelling security reason is given and the buyer agrees to use the weapons in strict accordance with international law.
The new policy will allow General Atomics, Kratos, and Anduril, which manufacture large drones, to have their products treated as "Foreign Military Sales" by the State Department, allowing them to be easily sold internationally, according to a US official speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
This effort is the first part of a planned "major" review of the US Foreign Military Sales program, the official said.
The US State Department did not respond to Reuters' request for comment on the policy shift.
Trump's move comes as US arms makers face stiff competition from Chinese, Israeli, and Turkish drone manufacturers. Neither China nor Israel are signatory to the MTCR, and Turkey, which did sign the agreement, features lighter and shorter-range UAVs not subject to the same restrictions as the heavier Reaper.
The US official who spoke to Reuters said the new guidelines will allow the US "to become the premier drone provider instead of ceding that space to Turkey and China."
Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association—a longtime critic of MTCR revision—warned that Trump's planned reinterpretation "would be a mistake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites Called 'Devastating Blow' to Nonproliferation
"It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security," one expert warned during a virtual event on the conflict.
Jun 23, 2025
Experts said Monday during a webinar on the escalating Mideast crisis that U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran's civilian nuclear facilities—which were ostensibly under International Atomic Energy Agency protection—further exposed the United States as untrustworthy and severely damaged efforts to stop the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
ReThink Media hosted Monday's webinar, during which host Mac Hamilton discussed issues including Saturday's U.S. attack on Iran with panelists Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War; Yasmine Taeb, the legislative political director at MPower Change; Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association's director for nonproliferation policy; and Arti Walker-Peddakotla, chair of the board at About Face: Veterans Against the War.
"Military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."
President Donald Trump ordered the attacks on the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Nuclear Facility, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center despite decades of U.S. intelligence community consensus—including his own administration's recent assessment—that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Trump also disregarded international law, his own two-week ultimatum for Iran, and the fact that the three facilities were supposed to be safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"From a nonproliferation perspective, Trump's decision to strike Iran was a reckless, irresponsible escalation that is likely to push Iran closer to nuclear weapons in the long term," Davenport said during Monday's webinar. "The strikes did damage key Iranian nuclear facilities, like the underground Fordow enrichment site. But Tehran had ample time prior to the strikes to remove its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium to a covert location, and it's likely that they did so."
"This underscores that the strikes may have temporarily set back Iran's program, but military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran," she continued. "Because technically, Iran has retained its nuclear weapons capability and critical aspects of the program."
"And politically, there's greater impetus now to weaponize," Davenport contended. "I mean, strikes are already strengthening factions in Iran calling for withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and strengthening arguments that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter further attacks."
Rejecting the president's claim to have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites, Davenport said that "all Trump has destroyed is U.S. credibility, I think Iranians have less reason now to trust the United States to negotiate an agreement in good faith."
Davenport continued:
Iran has certainly learned the lessons of past history. I mean, [former Libyan Prime Minister] Moammar Gadhafigave up Libya's nuclear weapons program, and later was overthrown by Western-backed forces. Syria, its nuclear weapons program was bombed while it was still in its infancy. Decades later, [former Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad was overthrown.
The United States has demonstrated it is not interested in credible negotiations under the Trump administration, and that if a deal is struck there's no guarantee that the United States will abide by its commitments, even if Iran is abiding by its end of the bargain. That's what we saw in the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] scenario. So it really raises questions about U.S. nonproliferation policy going forward, and the risk of erosion, you know, to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, despite his own administration's assessment that Tehran was in full compliance with the agreement. Critics argued Trump's move was meant to satisfy Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has boasted about being able to control U.S. policy and whose country has an undeclared nuclear arsenal and is not a party to the NPT.
Davenport highlighted the "uptick in conversation" in Tehran about quitting the NPT, given that "the treaty cannot preserve and protect civil nuclear activities."
"I think it is worth underscoring that the United States struck sites that were under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. These were not covert enrichment facilities," she stressed. "These were not sites where Iran was dashing to the bomb. You know, there's no evidence of that. These were safeguarded facilities that the IAEA regularly has access to."
"This is a devastating blow to the nonproliferation regime," Davenport said. "And I think over time, this is going to contribute to erosion of the treaty. It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security, that their civil programs can become targets without any evidence of weaponization, and drive further questioning of whether remaining in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is in their interest."
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi—who last week said there was no proof Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb—also warned during a Monday meeting of the body's board of governors in Vienna that "the weight of this conflict risks collapsing the global nuclear nonproliferation regime."
"But there is still a path for diplomacy," Grossi said. "We must take it, otherwise violence and destruction could reach unimaginable levels and the global nonproliferation regime that has underpinned international security for more than half a century could crumble and fall."
"Iran, Israel, and the Middle East need peace," he emphasized. "Armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in boradioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state which has been attacked. I therefore again call on maximum restraint. Military escalation not only threatens lives, it also delays us from taking the diplomatic path."
"To achieve the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and for the continued effectiveness of the global nonproliferation regime, we must return to negotiations," Grossi added.
Iranian officials and other observers have accused Grossi and the IAEA of complicity in U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. Last week, Iran filed a complaint against the agency's chief for allegedly "undermining the agency's impartiality."
This, following last week's IAEA board of governors approval of a resolution stating that Iran is not complying with its obligations as a member of the body, a finding based largely on dubious intelligence that skeptics compared to the "weapons of mass destruction" lies in the lead-up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In an opinion piece published Monday by Common Dreams, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of the peace group CodePink wrote that the U.S. and Israel "used Grossi" to "hijack the IAEA and start a war on Iran."
"Rafael Grossi should resign as IAEA director before he further undermines nuclear nonproliferation and drags the world any closer to nuclear war," Benjamin and Davies added.
On Monday, the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, began weighing legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA.
"The world clearly saw that the IAEA has failed to uphold its commitments and has become a political instrument," Majlis Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said on the chamber floor Monday.
Qalibaf added that Iran would "will definitely respond in a way that will make gambler Trump regret" attacking Iran.
Later Monday, Iran fired a salvo of missiles at a military base housing U.S. troops in Qatar and, reportedly, at an American facility in Iraq. There have been no reported casualties or strike damage.
This was followed by Trump's announcement on social media of a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Iran.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular