The global security landscape has changed dramatically since Donald Trump’s first term, but one thing that remains constant is U.S. presidential authority to use nuclear weapons. From the moment he takes the oath of office until the moment his successor assumes the presidency, Trump has the authority and the means to order a nuclear attack at any moment and for any reason if he chooses to do so.
Dating back to the Eisenhower administration, the system that gives U.S. presidents the ability to launch a nuclear strike at a moment’s notice revolves around what is known as the “nuclear football.” The “football” (formally called the presidential emergency satchel) is carried by a military aide who accompanies the president wherever he goes. As a backup, a second aide carrying another “football” follows the vice president.
The bulky, black, leather-bound 45-lb.-aluminum satchel is believed to contain laminated sheets printed with dozens of nuclear war plans and options, instructions on communicating with the public during a national emergency, and a secure satellite phone — all intentionally low-tech and offline to avoid vulnerability to hacking or technical glitches.
At all times, the president and vice president also carry sealed plastic cards, roughly the size of credit cards, informally called “biscuits” for their resemblance to cookies in a foil wrapper. Officially called the sealed authenticator system, the “biscuit” contains alphanumeric authentication codes to be used by the president to verify their identity.
For the duration of their term, President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance will be accompanied by the tools necessary to launch a nuclear attack. “Wherever they go, whatever they’re doing, there will always be a military aide with them with the satchel, just in case,” Stephen Schwartz, a nonresident fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, told Truthout.
Schwartz, who has closely followed the nuclear football for years, says that prior to taking the oath of office, the incoming president and vice president receive a briefing from a military aide, possibly representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will present an overview of their nuclear responsibilities, including how to communicate a nuclear order to the National Military Command Center and U.S. Strategic Command. That briefing may be the first and only time the president delves into nuclear war planning.
“Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humankind, no matter what administration is in the White House.”
Schwartz calls this system — in which those who are trained to follow orders are far removed from the person making the decision to launch an attack that could result in tens or hundreds of millions of deaths — “precarious.” The nuclear football, though, is central to the U.S.’s nuclear deterrence strategy, sending a powerful message to the world.
Under the doctrine of sole authority, the president alone, with no constraints or requirement of consultation, can order a nuclear attack at any time, against any target, for any reason. The president has the option to select from dozens of nuclear war plans to either initiate a first strike or respond to an incoming attack from any location, raising the question: Should any human being have access to or responsibility for this kind of destructive power?
Congress Weighs In (Sort of)
In December, The New York Times published the results of a three-question survey sent to all 530 voting members of Congress about their views on presidential sole authority to launch a nuclear attack without congressional approval. The overwhelming majority of senators and congressmembers did not respond or declined to comment, but at least 17 Democratic members of Congress said they opposed presidential sole authority to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike or respond to a nuclear attack without consulting Congress.
Among those who responded was Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who wrote, “A no-first-use policy should be the law of the land … nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humankind, no matter what administration is in the White House.”
Rep. John Garamendi of California told the Times, “These weapons are far too dangerous for any one person, and the pressure for a decision will be immense. When the consequences of a decision are existential, we should have more checks, not less.”
Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada said, “It is time for us to reconsider sole authority. … No president should be able to unilaterally launch a retaliatory [nuclear] strike. There ought to be some procedure by which the president must seek counsel from others.”
Five Republican lawmakers responded to the survey with only one showing support for any limits to presidential nuclear authority. Rep. Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey said, “A pre-emptive nuclear attack should require congressional approval.”
90 Seconds to Midnight
In 2023, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced it had advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight, symbolizing humanity’s closest proximity to global catastrophe. Sharon Squassoni, a research professor of international affairs at George Washington University, who served on the Bulletin’s science and security board in 2023, told Truthout, “For many decades, Americans have been fairly complacent about the trust they placed in American presidents not to get us into a nuclear exchange.”
“Should the president decide to do this … who is going to object? Who will have time to object? You’re talking about minutes.”
“If you believe in democracy, you believe that the public has a right and a responsibility to be engaged on all public policy issues,” Squassoni says. “I can’t think of a more important issue than what we do with nuclear weapons. As the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war, I also believe the U.S. has a special responsibility to reduce those dangers.”
Squassoni says the question of presidential nuclear authority shouldn’t be politicized because regardless of who is in the White House, the decision-making structure is fundamentally the same. “I think that we really should have a public debate about whether we want to invest that kind of power in a single person in the U.S. government.”
U.S. nuclear deterrence, she says, is largely predicated on the idea of “use it or lose it,” particularly with regards to land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles positioned in underground silos across the American West where they are considered more vulnerable to attack than nuclear submarines or bombers.
Squassoni says a debate over the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal is overdue. “Are the circumstances that we envision for using nuclear weapons too broad? Do we have too many capabilities? Right now the conversation is going in the opposite direction, which is: build up to be able to simultaneously deter two peer competitors [Russia and China].”
“I don’t know if the American public has the attention span for this, but it’s really quite serious when you consider just how few guardrails there are to launch an entire arsenal,” Squassoni said. “Should the president decide to do this and it is authenticated, who is going to object? Who will have time to object? You’re talking about minutes. It’s pretty scary.”
Schwartz agrees on the need for greater public engagement. “Nuclear weapons have been manufactured, deployed and paid for with literally trillions of our tax dollars to supposedly protect us. We not only have the right but the responsibility to know what the government is doing in our name and to make sure our elected officials hear our voices on this truly existential issue,” Schwartz said. “If we fail to exercise that right, the largely anonymous, highly secretive military-civilian nuclear bureaucracy will continue to make very costly decisions on our behalf, decisions that could endanger our lives and our livelihood.”
According to newly published figures, the United States currently maintains a stockpile of roughly 3,700 warheads, with a total inventory of approximately 5,177 nuclear warheads, including those in reserve and others awaiting dismantlement.
Insufficient Guardrails
Squassoni told Truthout the Biden administration missed an opportunity by failing to revisit the question of nuclear launch procedures and reconsidering how to strengthen political controls over the U.S. nuclear arsenal. With sufficient political will, she says, changes could and should be made, although she doesn’t expect Donald Trump will voluntarily propose restraints on his own power.
Nuclear weapons, she says, “are all about perceptions and the credibility of threats to use them.” And while the military is trained to use them if given the order, Squassoni says, “To my mind, nuclear weapons use is not credible … I think we need to walk ourselves back from this precipice, and [as] quickly and safely as possible.”
Meaningful changes will require nuclear-armed states to admit that these weapons are not useable and therefore do not provide security.
Meaningful changes, she says, will require nuclear-armed states to admit that after 80 years, these weapons are not useable and therefore do not provide security.
Joan Rohlfing, president and chief operating officer at the nonpartisan nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative, asks, “Why are we on such [a] short fuse that we have to be following the leadership around so they can make a near-instantaneous decision, and is that system still relevant for today’s world?”
Any U.S. president responding to a warning that a nuclear attack was underway would be required to respond with imperfect information in as little as 15 minutes. “We’re asking presidents to make the most consequential decision of their lives almost instantly, with incomplete information and nobody to help them,” Rohlfing told Truthout. Such a responsibility is not only unreasonable, she says, but is unlikely to lead to the best result in humanity’s interest.
With a long history of nuclear near-misses and the potential for future mistakes, Rohlfing says such power should never be concentrated in the hands of any single individual, no matter their talents or wisdom.
Finding a Better Way
Rohlfing says that if a president was inclined to do so, they could issue an executive order that could lead to a less dangerous decision process. The existing doctrine is deeply entrenched, but in the area of nuclear weapons risk reduction, Rohlfing says presidents can “move the needle very substantially by taking leadership action.” For example, a president could issue an executive order stipulating a new process for nuclear decision making, enabling the president to have more time.
Also, by adopting a No First Use policy — something the U.S. has declined to do — the pressure to make very rapid decisions could be relieved. “This is a whole range of force structure and policy changes we could make to expand decision time to enable a president to deliberate with his or her advisers.”
Any U.S. president responding to a warning that a nuclear attack was underway would be required to respond with imperfect information in as little as 15 minutes.
While there is an assumption that the Trump administration is likely to be more hawkish when it comes to nuclear weapons, Rohlfing says, “What we’ve seen from President Trump is he sometimes surprises us. And if he decides he wants to do something meaningful and historic in the nuclear weapons risk reduction space, he might just do some things that surprise us — in a positive way.”
She points to President Richard Nixon’s historic overtures to China and the dramatic nuclear risk reduction measures taken under President George H.W. Bush, including the unilateral reduction of forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons and the ending of nuclear bombers being on around-the-clock alert or always in the air. The potential to reduce risk and lower tension is there if the president decides to do so.
Power of the People
Rohlfing encourages the public to remember that they have an important voice in influencing the future of nuclear weapons policies. She refers to the late 1970s and early 1980s, when an energized and engaged public demanded change from political leaders and as a result, global nuclear stockpiles were reduced from roughly 70,000 down to around the 12,000 we have today. “That was triggered by public intervention,” says Rohlfing. “I would wish for the public to get re-engaged, use your voices, demand a plan from your political leaders for nuclear security.”
According to a 2023 Chicago Council Surveys opinion poll, 61 percent of people in the U.S. reported being “very/somewhat uncomfortable” with presidential sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.” Today, a host of grassroots movements and nonpartisan organizations are advocating for an end to sole authority and calling for the U.S. to adopt a “No First Use” policy.
“Despair is not a helpful impulse even though it’s understandable,” Rohlfing says. And while the current moment can feel overwhelming, she says people are not without agency. “We’re at a hard point, but we can fight and demand change from our political leaders. We are not without power. We all have power. We can either fight this or we can roll over and let this overtake us, and I prefer the former.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.