Nuclear

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act should be repealed or amended. The alternatives are extending a disastrous war of choice or ignoring the law.

The Trump administration's fast-tracking of AI development & nuclear deployment is redefining the relationship between innovation, public risk, and accountability.

Experts analyze the US-Israel Iran military conflicts - covering nuclear diplomacy; strategic, security, and regional implications; and domestic and international law.

In a world where conflict abroad reverberates rapidly through global energy systems, “energy dominance” cannot be defined narrowly as maximizing fossil fuel output.

New START’s expiration highlights the limits of arms control designed for an earlier era of bilateral rivalry, without accounting for factors such as China's buildup.

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

In reviewing a U.S.-Saudi Section 123 nuclear agreement, Congress must weigh nonproliferation safeguards, enrichment and reprocessing limits, and its national security impact.

In 2026, it is highly likely that countries such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia will move closer to developing the technical means—and political motivation—to build a bomb.

In 2026, the nuclear order will become more fragmented, less predictable, and increasingly difficult to govern through existing institutions.

Trump’s announcement 'approving' a nuclear-powered submarine plan with South Korea contradicts U.S. law requiring specific terms, agreements, and congressional review.

There’s no shortage of opportunities to reduce the chances that a war game – or the plot of “Dynamite” – is never played out in real-time.

The science is sound, the stockpile is strong, and the call to test a nuclear bomb has no technical foundation. Resuming testing would not make America safer.