WASHINGTON DC – US President Donald Trump’s sudden directive to resume US nuclear weapons testing – announced via social media and citing unspecified actions by other nations – has thrown Washington into turmoil and reopened debate over the country’s arms control commitments.

The move, which could end a three-decade moratorium on full-scale nuclear detonations, was defended by administration officials but met with confusion among military leaders and sharp condemnation from lawmakers.

At the heart of the controversy lies a simple question: What exactly did the President mean?

Veteran US diplomat Daniel Fried, who has advised seven administrations, told Kyiv Post the directive seemed poorly conceived and risked weakening Washington’s credibility abroad.

Fried said Trump’s reference to other nations testing nuclear weapons “appears inaccurate,” noting that only North Korea has conducted such tests in recent decades.

He suggested Trump may have confused Russia’s test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile with an actual nuclear detonation, which he said are “very different things.”

According to Fried, Trump may have intended to warn Russia against nuclear escalation, but the vague wording “blunted the message” and clearly “caught the Pentagon off guard.” He called the episode “odd, but perhaps not without purpose.”

Military leader contradicts President’s premise

The ambiguity Fried described was echoed in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where Senator Angus King (I–ME) pressed Vice Admiral Richard Correll, Commander of US Strategic Command, for evidence that other countries were conducting nuclear tests.

“Are any other countries doing explosive testing of nuclear warheads?” King asked.

Correll replied, “To my knowledge, the last explosive nuclear testing was by North Korea—the DPRK—and that was in 2017.” He added that China’s last publicly acknowledged test was in 1996, confirming that neither Russia nor China has conducted an explosive test in decades.

King suggested the President may have been referring to delivery systems, such as Russia’s Skyfall missile. Correll agreed that was possible, and King concluded, “We hope that is clarified in the coming days.”

Administration’s defense and domestic backlash

Despite the lack of recent foreign nuclear tests, Vice President J.D. Vance defended Trump’s order as necessary to ensure the US arsenal “functions properly.”

Like Trump’s post, however, Vance did not clarify whether the directive involved full detonations or non-explosive trials.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Vance said testing is vital to verify the operational readiness of US nuclear weapons.

Democrats in Congress quickly condemned the move. Senator Jacky Rosen (D–NV), whose state once hosted US test sites, warned of the human and environmental toll, noting that Nevadans still live with “lasting radioactive contamination.” She argued the nuclear stockpile is already certified as safe each year and called Trump’s directive “reckless and dangerous.”

Senator Mark Kelly (D–AZ) cautioned that renewed US testing could trigger a global arms race. “If we resume testing, China will likely follow,” he said. “That only helps them advance their technology.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D–NY) called the order “a massive breach of international treaties” and “another example of Donald Trump and Republican policies being divorced from reality.” He said Democrats would instead focus on reducing living costs and repairing the health care system.

Need for clarification

As criticism mounted – including warnings from Russian lawmakers Leonid Slutsky and Konstantin Kosachev that the move could violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – veteran diplomat Fried emphasized the need for clarity from the White House.

He contrasted Trump’s confusing order with an earlier, sharper response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear boasts. “Then, Trump told Putin to stop testing and start negotiating,” Fried said. “That was strong and clear.”

This time, Fried emphasized, “no one knows what the [US] President meant—and when the message is unclear, it loses its power.”

He argued that if Trump meant the US would respond only if others resumed testing, that would be reasonable. “But suggesting we might start testing without cause makes no sense and undercuts his own point,” he said.