Thomas Countryman on New START Expiry and the Value of Arms Control
February 4, 2026
Prior to New START’s expiration, ACA board chair Tom Countryman joined Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, California Representative John Garamendi, ACA Executive Director Daryl G. Kimball, FAS Director of Global Risk Jon Wolfsthal, and Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis Lynn Rusten to urge the replacement of New START and a return to negotiations to prevent an new and more dangerous three-way arms race.
"I want to believe that Donald Trump is sincere in the occasional brief comments he has made about denuclearization, about wanting to see a smaller arsenal, about wanting to spend less than a hundred billion dollars a year as we do today in maintaining our nuclear weapons and the complex that supports them.
I want to believe that.
But I hope he also knows that this is not a real estate deal that can be concluded over a cup of tea with another leader.
Arms control treaties require detailed preparation and long negotiations by an expert inter-agency team. And the inter-agency team, by the way, has largely been decimated with most of the people experienced in negotiating with Russia removed from the State Department in the last year.
Still, I want to believe that there can be a new and productive era in arms control - a stronger agreement that doesn't just set rules of the road to reduce risk, but that actually reduces the number of warheads in three arsenals and reduces the amount of money the American people pay to maintain that arsenal.
To get there, President Trump needs to take a deep breath and not begin uploading missiles tomorrow. Rather, take advantage of the fact that you've got time to make decisions and more importantly, you've got time to talk to the other side.
He should empower a qualified team of experienced professionals to begin negotiations with Russia. He should authorize a qualified team of experienced professionals to begin consultations, not negotiations, but consultations with China.
This is the path forward.
We do not have to set back the goals that 10 presidents in a row have expressed of reducing nuclear danger by rushing to an immediate buildup.
One more thought to build on what my friend Lynn Rusten, Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said.
What is arms control?
Arms control is not an end in itself. It is not virtue signaling. It is not a guaranteed path to a Nobel Peace Prize, although historically, it's not a bad path to that peace prize.
Arms control is national security.
It is the most efficient, the least risky, the least costly form of national security. And if this administration fails to make it a priority today, we will face a trilateral nuclear arms race that will exceed in cost and in danger what we lived through during the Cold War.
Let's make a smarter choice."