2 Nov 2025

Trump announces resumption of US nuclear weapons testing

Andre Damon




The mushroom cloud from the world’s first test of a thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb), over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands on November 1, 1952. [AP Photo/Los Alamos National Laboratory]

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced the resumption of US nuclear weapons testing, in the latest move by the United States to remove all remaining guardrails restricting its preparations for World War III. All countries in the world have officially banned nuclear testing, and the move makes the United States the only country in the world to allow the practice.

Nuclear testing, beyond scattering deadly radiation into the atmosphere and contaminating groundwater, is universally understood as a massively escalatory act, expanding the possibility of nuclear war, whether through miscalculation or deliberate provocation.

In 1963, one year after the United States and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy administration negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which banned all nuclear testing except those conducted underground. In 1992, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, President George H.W. Bush declared a unilateral ban on nuclear testing.

In the decades before testing was banned, over 2,000 nuclear detonations were conducted, more than half of which were carried out by the United States. These tests sickened communities both inside the American West and throughout the South Pacific and rendered entire areas uninhabitable.

Trump made his announcement just before he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping for talks in South Korea on the ongoing US-China trade war. Trump was using the US nuclear arsenal as a means to secure the predatory interests of US imperialism on the world stage, dangling over the head of humanity the threat of extermination through nuclear warfare.

The United States has the world’s largest nuclear program, spending twice as much on nuclear weapons as Russia and China combined. The US is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, exterminating the defenseless populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to threaten the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War.

In reporting Trump’s announcement, the US media has failed to present any historical context or antecedents to it. But, far from being a spur-of-the-moment improvisation, US military planners have been actively discussing the resumption of nuclear testing since at least 2020.

Trump’s own post announcing the move clearly placed it in the context of a years-long buildup of the US nuclear arsenal. He wrote, “The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my first term in office.”

He added, “I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.”

Trump’s post, however, only told part of the story. The nuclear buildup that he bragged about was, in fact, initiated under the Obama administration and continued in Trump’s first term, Biden’s term and now in the second Trump term. This nuclear buildup, which the vast majority of the American population is not aware of, has continued with complete bipartisan support, at a cost of more than $1 trillion.

One year ago, the New York Times published an extensive feature story about the secret plan dedicated to “making America nuclear again” through the creation of a “modern arsenal for a volatile new nuclear age.”

“If you don’t live where the submarines are welded or the missile silos are dug, there’s a good chance you wouldn’t know it’s happening,” the Times wrote. “The federal government has said little about the plan in public, outside of congressional hearings and strategy papers, or the vast amount being spent. There has been no significant debate. The billion-dollar programs move under the radar.”

In the year since the publication of that article, both the massive US nuclear buildup and the conspiracy of silence surrounding it have continued. In December, Congress approved the $895 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the largest military budget of any country in human history, including record funding of nuclear modernization efforts.

In January, Trump announced that the United States would “immediately begin the construction of a state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defense shield.” Far from being a defensive measure, this so-called “Golden Dome” would encourage the White House to threaten other countries with a preemptive nuclear first strike, since the missile shield would supposedly protect the US from retaliation.

As part of the ongoing US nuclear buildup, the Trump administration has sought to eliminate all restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons. Most prominently, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August 2019, again under Trump.

In response to Trump’s announcement in October 2018 that the US would withdraw from the treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would embark on the development of a new series of nuclear delivery mechanisms, including an underwater drone known as the Poseidon and a new long-range cruise missile known as the Burevestnik.

Russia recently conducted tests of the delivery mechanisms, but not the nuclear payload, of both systems, an act that Trump seized upon in order to announce the long-planned and long-discussed resumption of US nuclear testing.

Following its withdrawal from the INF treaty, the US has moved to deploy nuclear weapons previously banned under the treaty to locations from which they can hit Russia and China. The Pentagon has extended the range of its Precision Strike Missile and has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the development of a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile known as the SLCM-N.

The development of ballistic and cruise missiles previously banned under the INF Treaty has been combined with the escalation of direct attacks by Ukraine, a NATO proxy, deep inside Russia. This month, the Wall Street Journal reported, “The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies,” leading to an attack this month using UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles on the city of Bryansk in southern Russia.

Earlier this month, Trump confirmed he was considering sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Responding to Trump’s threat, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev observed, “It’s impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight.” Tomahawk missiles have long had the ability to deliver nuclear warheads.

Between the deployment of short-range nuclear weapons on the borders of Russia and China, the lobbing of NATO-supplied long-range weapons into Russian cities, and the resumption of nuclear testing, the whole world will be on a nuclear hair trigger.

Any time a “conventional” missile is shot from the semi-official NATO ally Ukraine, or whenever the United States carries out an unscheduled nuclear test ordered by Trump, the world’s leading practitioner of the so-called “madman theory,” planners in Russia and China will ask themselves: “Are we under nuclear attack?”

The brinksmanship of the United States, while calculated to bring about the submission of Russia and China, can trigger a massive escalatory spiral, with incalculable consequences.

The rise of imperialist militarism is inextricably connected to the escalating assault on the working class in the United States. Trump’s announcement that the US will resume nuclear testing comes just days before the administration is scheduled to end funding for food stamps, cutting tens of millions of Americans off of a vital lifeline just ahead of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

There is a direct connection between the two. In a statement published this month, the Democratic Party-aligned Brookings Institution, speaking for a policy supported by both the Democratic and Republican parties, called for “a whole-of-society strategy of resilience that leverages all the public and private tools at its disposal: total defense for an age of total war.”

The doctrine of total war, pioneered by the German military leadership during World War II and continued as state doctrine under the Nazi regime, saw the subordination of all of society to the war effort, demanding “sacrifice” from the working class in the name of national military success.

Under the doctrine of “total war,” the leaders of Nazi Germany brought disaster upon the population of Germany just as surely as it waged a war of extermination throughout Eastern Europe. Now, Trump, speaking for the American oligarchy as a whole, sees the Nazi regime as a model, not only for dictatorship in the United States, but for military violence all over the world.

US extracts billion-dollar investments from South Korea under trade “deal”

Nick Beams


A major purpose of US president Trump’s visit to Southeast Asia this week was to enforce “deals”—more akin to diktats than agreements freely entered—through which hundreds of billions of dollars are to be pumped into the American economy.

His role as a kind of bagman-enforcer for US imperialism was exemplified in the agreements with Malaysia and South Korea, following the earlier deal with Japan under which it will supply the US with $550 billion in investment funds, in order to avert Trump’s crippling tariff hikes.

Following the agreement with Malaysia, in which it will invest $70 billion in the US over the next 10 years, Trump managed to finalise a commitment by South Korea to supply $350 billion in investment funds to the US.

President Donald Trump, right, speaks during a meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung in the Oval Office of the White House, August 25, 2025. [AP Photo/Alex Brandon]

The amount had been set down in July, but South Korea insisted it could not meet the US demand it be provided in cash—as is the case with Japan—because such a large outflow would destabilise its currency, the won. Korean authorities pointed out the amount was equivalent to 80 percent of the country’s foreign currency reserves and such a movement could set off a financial crisis.

Under the agreement, $200 billion will be supplied over the course of 10 years, with no annual amount to exceed $20 billion, with a further $150 billion to be invested in shipbuilding operations in the US.

In return the US has agreed to reduce the tariff on South Korean imports into the US from 25 percent to 15 percent. The Korean fear was if the higher level remained it would devastate the auto industry.

The making of the so-called agreement was accompanied by a display of groveling by South Korean President Lee Jae Myung in which he presented Trump with a replica of a golden crown excavated from an ancient royal tomb to which Trump replied: “I’d like to wear it right now.”

The funds to be supplied by South Korea will be directed to what are regarded as strategic industries, including semi-conductors, batteries and nuclear power. Profits from the investments will be split between the two countries until the initial investment is recouped.

While South Korea is putting up the money, the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, will head the committee to assess the investment projects.

A so-called Fact Sheet issued by the White House on the agreement outlined the extent of South Korean purchases and made clear that the strategic objective of its economic agenda is to underscore “America’s prominent role as the preeminent Pacific power.”

Under the agreement, Korean Air will buy 103 new Boeing aircraft valued at $36.2 billion along with the purchase by the South Korean Air Force of US aircraft.

On the key issue of rare earths—part of the drive to break the Chinese monopoly of the processing of critical minerals—a partnership is to be established with the Korean firm POSCO International to refine and separate rare earths and establish “high-value mobility magnets.”

Under the heading “Furthering America’s Energy Dominance,” the Fact Sheet said that the Korean Gas Corporation had signed agreements to purchase around 3.3 million tonnes of US liquified natural gas.

The Korean electricity conglomerate LS Group is reported to have pledged $3 billion by 2030 to upgrade US power infrastructure including undersea cables and equipment.

Amazon is to make a $5 billion investment to build Korea’s cloud infrastructure “helping to drive US exports and American AI leadership.” The Fact Sheet noted that Amazon had made investments in 14 of the APEC group of countries, totaling $40 billion.

In the key area of shipbuilding, which is almost non-existent in the US in comparison to China, Trump secured a commitment from South Korea to “modernise and expand the capacity of American shipbuilding industries.”

Hyundai and Cerberus Capital Management, a US private equity firm with $65 billion in assets, will form a partnership in a $5 billion investment program for US shipyards and develop new technologies such as autonomous navigation, digitalisation and automation.

The Korean shipbuilding firm Hanwha Ocean is involved in a $5 billion infrastructure plan to expand production at Pennsylvania’s Philly Shipyard and “increase its current production capacity by more than ten-fold.”

Shipbuilding has been identified by the Trump administration as one of the key components in strengthening US “national security”—developing the sinews of war—the banner under which the economic and tariff war has been conducted.

In an article published on the eve of this week’s discussions, the New York Times noted that when newly elected South Korean president Lee visited Washington in August he was asked about the Korean policy of trying to balance between the US and China.

The Korean term for the relationship has been anmigyeongjung, which loosely translated is “the United States for security and China for the economy.”

However, on his US visit, in recognition of the intensifying conflict between the US and China Lee said: “It is no longer possible to maintain that type of logic.” According to the article, he acknowledged that “increasingly, South Korea must choose, and it has not been in a position to deviate from the policies of the United States.”

That reorientation was reflected in the effusive greetings by Lee delivered to Trump on his visit.

But the objective dilemma remains. China is South Korea’s largest trading partner, accounting for a quarter of its exports when Hong Kong is taken into account.

And Beijing has the willingness and capacity to hit back against South Korea in response to any measures it considers inimical to interest. This was demonstrated earlier this month when Hanwha Ocean was hit with sanctions because Beijing alleged it had supported and assisted a US investigation into Chinese shipbuilding practices.

Whether they will be lifted as a result of the agreement between Chinese president Xi Jinping to suspend port taxes for a year remains to be seen. But the incident reveals that the more the US tries to bludgeon the countries of Southeast Asia into its camp, there will be increased retaliation.

Andrew stripped of his royal titles: A toxic representative of a toxic institution

Paul Bond


Fallout from the Prince Andrew sex scandal has again erupted in a major crisis for the British ruling class.

The royal family has been forced to all but disown him to preserve their own position. Buckingham Palace yesterday announced, “a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.” This makes him just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The scale of the crisis is indicated by the explanation, “These censures are deemed necessary.”

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and his daughter Eugenie riding in the carriage procession at Trooping the Colour, June 16, 2012 [Photo by Carfax2 / CC BY-SA 3.0]

“Formal notice has now been served to surrender” Andrew’s lease on the virtually rent-free Royal Lodge—a mansion. He is reportedly being moved to an undisclosed property on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, owned privately by King Charles III.

Sources told the Daily Mail that these moves were entirely the work of Charles, without pressure from the heir to the throne. But few believe this, given the growing anxiety of Prince William and Catherine over the reputation and future of the monarchy.

Concern to minimise the damage is shared across every layer of the ruling class. When Andrew initially announced he would not use his titles, a Downing Street spokesman said, “We support the judgement made by the royal family.” Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said, “I think the royal family have said that they didn’t want to take up parliamentary time with this. There are lots of other things that Parliament is discussing.”

But the Starmer government and the rest are engaged in wishful thinking.

The royal family is trying to disentangle itself from a sex scandal, but the crisis is not containable. Andrew has lived a playboy life that led him into friendship with the billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein’s pimping for the super-rich involved everyone from Donald Trump in the US to the British monarchy.

However, Andrew is only the most nakedly venal of the parasitic royal family.

The monarchy has long been cultivated as a pillar of the capitalist order. The overthrow and execution of Charles I in 1649 marked the birth of bourgeois rule out of feudalism. The Restoration in 1660 created a constitutional monarchy to safeguard that rule through a political compromise between the old feudal aristocracy and the new bourgeoisie, solidified by the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the passing of the Bill of Rights the next year.

Over the centuries, the monarchy served the bourgeois state well. It offered a nominally unpolitical and unifying head of state, shrouded and sanctified by “history” and “tradition”, during the bloody growth of the British Empire. Later it provided a tool of global realpolitik in relations with US and other imperialisms, and newly independent Commonwealth states, as the Empire and Britain’s economic supremacy waned.

Particularly in the person of Elizabeth II, the monarchy gave bourgeois rule an appearance of stability and continuity. But the fall of British capitalism’s international position saw a reckless embrace of the naked speculation of financial parasitism. The royals themselves courted this layer.

In this July 10, 2018 file photo, members of the royal family gather on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, with from left, Prince Charles, Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth II, Meghan the Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry, Prince William and Kate the Duchess of Cambridge, as they watch a flypast of Royal Air Force aircraft pass over Buckingham Palace in London. [AP Photo/Matt Dunham]

Elizabeth responded with an attempt to cut the royal retinue down to a more manageable size, but this only made those lower down the pecking order more rapacious and reckless in seeking independent revenue streams from a global financial oligarchy who far outstrip them in wealth. The hitherto most damaging impact of this process, excluding the bitter break-up and divorce of Charles and the late princess Diana, was the fallout with her son, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. This has now been eclipsed by Andrew’s public disgrace.

The immediate trigger for the downfall of Andrew was the publication of Nobody’s Girl, the memoirs of Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre who tragically committed suicide in April before its release.

Giuffre was procured by Epstein when she was 17 and working at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort. She said he paid her $15,000 for servicing Andrew. Giuffre was photographed with the prince in 2001, when she was 17.

Virginia Giuffre, then 17, with Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, second son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, in 2001.

Andrew denied the allegations made, but every effort to defuse the situation only made it worse. A 2019 interview with BBC journalist Emily Maitlis, intended to clear his name, was a car crash. Giuffre wrote that it would help her legal team “build an ironclad case” against Andrew.

Andrew agreed an out-of-court settlement in 2022, paying Giuffre $12 million—reportedly with bridging loans from other royals including his mother. He also donated $2 million to Giuffre’s charity for the victims of sex trafficking. This temporarily kept him off the stand over details of his interactions with Giuffre.

During the Maitlis interview, Andrew claimed photographs of Epstein and himself together in 2010 were taken when he went to break off relations in person. However, a 2011 email, now identified as being from Andrew, reassured Epstein they were “in this together,” and concluded, “We’ll play some more soon!!!!”

A still from the interview "Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal". [Photo: BBC]

Giuffre saw the settlement as “acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again.” But she agreed only to a year’s silence, so Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee celebrations would not be “tarnished” further.

All attempts to avoid a prosecution have now been blown apart, with the removal of his titles leaving him wide open to legal action.

Andrew’s continued efforts to peddle himself commercially have also raised broader difficulties. As part of a 2018 governmental trade delegation to China, hustling an initiative to Chinese businesses, he met President Xi Jinping’s chief of staff Cai Qi. This has now become politically awkward to the British ruling class, following the collapse of a spying case against two men accused of supplying Cai with information in the context of an escalating US war drive against China.

To stave off the crisis, under pressure from William, Andrew voluntarily relinquished his dukedoms “to put my duty to my family and the country first.” But none of this was enough in the face of popular hostility; a recent poll showed a 91 percent negative opinion of Andrew.

The royal family felt compelled to take extraordinary measures. Threatening removal of his daughters’ titles seems to have been the final lever to force Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson to agree to quit Royal Lodge in Windsor. The 30-bedroom mansion was attracting further outrage.

The banner of Prince Andrew seen here on Royal Lodge in 2008 [Photo by Phillip Williams / CC BY-SA 2.0]

Andrew paid £1 million for a 75-year “cast iron” lease from the Crown Estate in 2003, requiring him only to pay “one peppercorn” of rent annually “if demanded.” Ferguson, divorced from him in 1996, has been living in a wing of the mansion since 2008. She was also bankrolled by her “supreme friend” Epstein for 15 years. She apologised to Epstein for having publicly disowned him to save her own skin.

Formally stripping Andrew of his titles against his wishes would have required an act of parliament, which threatened another hornets’ nest. This was last done in 1917, against royals fighting for their German relatives in World War One. These included the Duke of Albany, who stayed in Germany and became a prominent Nazi supporter—one of many in the royal family.

Charles has sought to bypass this by removing Andrew’s name from the official roll of the peerage by issuing a royal warrant, effectively meaning he has lost his Duke of York title. But with his daughters keeping their titles, there are still demands that Andrew is formally removed from his eighth position in the line of succession, not to mention calls by Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, that he should be behind bars.

Andrew embodies the toxic decay of bourgeois rule and its institutions. The revulsion he arouses is natural and welcome, but this crisis cannot be swept aside by the cosmetic airbrushing of titles and stately homes. It is systemic.

Millions of American workers and youth have demonstrated against the authoritarian regime of Trump under the slogan “No Kings.” That is a slogan that must be embraced by the working class in Britain, still confronted by an actual monarchy.