Follow us on social

Donald Trump

If Trump wants to 'denuclearize' then let's help him

Little noticed remarks from Davos should get more attention

Analysis | QiOSK

Throughout his time in public life, Donald Trump has been nothing if not unpredictable. His public statements can be all over the map, and predicting which of them will be followed up with decisive action has been a losing proposition.

This time it may be different. In his first days in office he has released a torrent of executive orders designed to advance his stated agenda, from mass deportations to cleansing government programs of anything involving even a whiff of the so-called “woke agenda.”

But some promises are harder to keep than others. So it is with Trump’s recent, remarkable remarks at Davos about seeking global “denuclearization” in light of the costs and devastating capabilities of nuclear weapons.

There was no indication that Trump intended to talk about nuclear weapons in Davos. His formal remarks were focused on Biden bashing and self-congratulatory rhetoric about his first batch of executive orders, along with the usual demand that NATO allies spend a higher share of their GDP for military purposes.

Later in his address, he immodestly claimed that “we’ve done more in four days … than other administrations have accomplished in four years.”

But once the bragging stopped and the Q&A began, Trump said the following in response to a question about U.S. relations with China:

“Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capacity is something we don’t even want to talk about today, because you don’t want to hear it.”

Trump went on to say, “I want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think that’s very possible,” suggesting that there be talks on the issue involving the U.S., Russia, and China.

Words and deeds often diverge, and an answer in a Q&A session is not the same as a sustained diplomatic initiative. But as with his excoriation of “warmongers” and “war profiteers” on the campaign trail, Trump’s call for denuclearization indicates his belief that there is a market for such a policy among members of his political base, which, in the most optimistic scenario, could open the way to a strange bedfellows pressure campaign to reverse the nuclear arms race and reduce the enormous sums the United States is currently spending to build a new generation of nuclear weapons.

But Trump’s record on nuclear issues during his first term suggests that a note of caution is required in speculating on whether his Davos remarks represent an enduring commitment or offhand rhetoric that will be quickly tossed into the ash bin of history.

Trump I featured his overture to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for discussions on nuclear reductions. He was (wrongly) criticized for even seeking to talk to the North Korean leader. And the effort collapsed due to lack of preparation and the pull of other issues. Trump the conciliator became Trump the trash talker, threatening to rain “fire and fury” down on North Korea. The about face on nuclear arms reductions was sudden and unexplained.

Three-way talks among the U.S., Russia, and China will be even more challenging than his short-lived effort with North Korea, and there are real questions about whether the Trump team can hang in there long enough to make real progress.

But for the moment the most productive move is to encourage the president to take concrete steps in pursuit of his anti-nuclear rhetoric. Even if he doesn’t ultimately follow through, we have a moment where the public’s attention will be more focused on nuclear issues that it has in quite some time. We need to take advantage of it, and remind people that it is far more dangerous to spend obscene amounts of money building a new generation of nuclear weapons than it is to reduce and regulate these potentially world ending weapons.


Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump makes a special address remotely during the 55th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Yves Herman
Analysis | QiOSK
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.