Edition

Proliferation News 5/8/25

IN THIS ISSUE: Pursuing Stable Coexistence: A Reorientation of U.S. Policy Toward North Korea, Will China Escalate?, Trump Says He Hasn’t Decided if Iran Can Enrich Uranium in a New Deal, Scoop: White House seeks to hasten nuclear deployment, Sentinel nuclear missiles will need new silos, Air Force says, Nuclear fusion is the tech that could power AI and save the planet—if it ever works

Published on May 8, 2025

Frank Aum and Ankit Panda | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The status quo trajectory of U.S. policy toward North Korea is unsustainable. Rigid adherence to a narrow strategy of denuclearization and enhanced deterrence has led to a state of dangerous coexistence. The results are unbridled growth in North Korea’s nuclear force capabilities, its adoption of a nuclear doctrine that features preemptive use of nuclear weapons, and compounded risks of crisis escalation. The current state is also plagued by complete estrangement between Washington and Pyongyang that forecloses crisis management and tension reduction, increased demand for nuclear weapons in South Korea, and a strategic partnership between North Korea and Russia that is destabilizing multiple regions.

Tong Zhao | Foreign Affairs

In 2021, at the contentious first meeting between senior Chinese foreign policy officials and their counterparts in the Biden administration, Beijing’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, declared that the United States could no longer “speak with China from a position of strength.” The statement, which seemed to unsettle U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, has proved instructive for understanding China’s strategic outlook. In the four years since, Beijing has operated under the assumption that a profound shift in the balance of power between the two countries is underway.

Laurence Norman and Michael R. Gordon | The Wall Street Journal

President Trump said Wednesday that he hasn’t decided whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium under a new nuclear deal, signaling that the White House might be flexible on a central issue in the talks… Trump’s comments in the Oval Office are the latest in a series of mixed messages the administration has sent about what nuclear work Iran would be allowed to do under a potential deal. 

Daniel Moore | Axios

The White House is planning executive action soon to try to speed nuclear reactors’ deployment, Axios has learned. Why it matters: One or more orders will likely lean heavily on the departments of Defense and Energy as a way to meet soaring energy demand. The orders could seek to leverage those two agencies to avoid any licensing delays from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one source involved with the plans told Axios.

Stephen Losey | Defense News

The Air Force will have to dig entirely new nuclear missile silos for the LGM-35A Sentinel, creating another complication for a troubled program that is already facing future cost and schedule overruns. The Air Force originally hoped the existing silos that have housed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles could be adapted to launch Sentinel missiles, which would be more efficient than digging entirely new silos. But a test project at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California showed that approach would be fraught with further problems and cause the program to run even further behind and over budget, the service said.

Adam Becker | Fortune

Sam Altman is confident that we’ll unlock the power of the stars soon. The billionaire CEO of OpenAI claimed in an interview with Bloomberg in January that “fusion’s gonna work” in the next few years—thanks to Helion, a company where Altman is the chairman of the board and one of the main investors. If Altman is right, it would herald a new era… But if Altman’s prediction sounds familiar, it’s because he has made similar ones before, and they haven’t worked out.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.