President Donald Trump has indicated he is prepared to let the last major U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control agreement lapse next month, rejecting Moscow’s offer to voluntarily uphold its limits while insisting any future deal must include China.

Why It Matters

The New START treaty, expiring February 5, is the final pact capping the strategic nuclear arsenals of the world’s two largest powers at 1,550 deployed warheads each. Its collapse without a replacement risks unleashing an unrestricted arms race, eroding decades of verification mechanisms, and complicating global security at a time of heightened U.S.-Russia tensions over Ukraine and China’s rapid nuclear expansion.

What to Know

In a wide-ranging Oval Office interview with The New York Times published January 8, Trump addressed the treaty’s impending expiration with characteristic nonchalance: “If it expires, it expires,” before adding, “We’ll just do a better agreement.” The remarks appear in the context of a broader discussion on presidential power and international constraints.

The 2010 New START treaty cannot be extended beyond its current term following a 2021 five-year rollover. Russia proposed in September to mutually observe the deployment caps after expiration, but Trump has shown no inclination to accept.

Verification measures—inspections and data exchanges—were suspended years ago amid the Ukraine conflict, though both sides have continued respecting the numerical limits. As outlined in a Reuters analysis, expiration could lead to diminished transparency, potential rapid deployments, and uncertainty over successor negotiations.

Trump has long argued that China, with the world’s fastest-growing nuclear force, must be part of any future agreement—a position Beijing has consistently rejected as unrealistic given the vast disparity in arsenal sizes. The full New York Times interview places these nuclear comments amid Trump’s assertions that his power is limited only by his “own morality.”

What People Are Saying

Arms control experts express alarm at the prospect of unchecked deployments, with former State Department official Thomas Countryman noting advocates within the administration favoring expansion to counter China. The Arms Control Association has highlighted ongoing concerns about the treaty’s fate, urging preservation of limits amid the lack of successor talks.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) has echoed calls for mutual adherence post-expiration to buy time for broader negotiations, warning of heightened risks in a multipolar nuclear environment.

China’s embassy has reiterated that trilateral inclusion would be “neither reasonable nor realistic,” maintaining its arsenal at a minimal deterrent level.

Analysts highlight the treaty remarks as consistent with Trump’s broader worldview—prioritizing unilateral strength and new deals over preserving existing frameworks.

What Happens Next

With less than four weeks until February 5, the window for last-minute diplomacy on interim adherence or a successor framework is narrowing. Observers will closely watch for any bilateral signals from Washington or Moscow, potential shifts in deployment postures after expiration, and whether China’s involvement becomes a viable path—or a permanent roadblock—in the months ahead.