Connect with us

News

Trump says he wants to resume nuclear testing. Here’s what that would mean

Published

on

Trump says he wants to resume nuclear testing. Here’s what that would mean

A sub-surface atomic test is shown March 23, 1955 at the Nevada Test Site near Yucca Flats, Nev.

AP/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

AP/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

President Trump said on Thursday that the U.S. would begin testing nuclear weapons again for the first time in decades.

“We’ve halted many years ago, but with others doing testing I think it’s appropriate to do so,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Experts say that the resumption of testing would be a major escalation and could upend the nuclear balance of power.

Advertisement

“I think a decision to resume nuclear testing would be extremely dangerous and would do more to benefit our adversaries than the United States,” said Corey Hinderstein, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Nuclear Peace.

Here’s what a test would involve, and why the president might be calling for one now.

There’s currently only one place America could test a nuke — near Las Vegas, Nevada

The Nevada National Security Site, approximately 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is currently the only place where America could test a nuclear weapon, says Robert Peters, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the Heritage Foundation.

The Nevada site is around 1,300 square miles in size, larger than the state of Rhode Island. Starting in the 1950s, scientists conducted atmospheric nuclear tests at the site, but from 1962 to 1992, testing was done underground.

Today, testing would likely be done in “a complex of deep underground mineshafts,” Peters said.

Advertisement

Scientists dig a deep shaft either directly below ground or into the side of a mountain. They then put a nuclear device in a chamber at the end of the shaft and seal it up. The detonation is contained by the rock, reducing the risk of atmospheric fallout.

Although underground testing is far safer than atmospheric testing, it still carries risks, said Hinderstein. In the past, some radioactive fallout has leaked from test shafts. Additionally, the test could shake buildings as far away as Las Vegas, and Hinderstein said some of the newer buildings in Vegas could even be at risk of damage.

“All of these big highrises — including Stratosphere, including the Trump Hotel,” she said. “They’re not designed for massive, significant seismic activity.”

America’s last test in Nevada was over 30 years ago

At the end of the Cold War, the nation’s major nuclear powers declared a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. Russia, then the Soviet Union, tested its last nuclear weapon in 1990, the U.S. conducted its final test in 1992, and China conducted its last test in 1996.

The U.S. conducted hundreds of underground tests in Nevada. Each massive explosion created a subsidence crater visible at the surface.

The U.S. conducted hundreds of underground tests in Nevada. Each massive explosion created a subsidence crater visible at the surface.

NNSA/NNSS

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

NNSA/NNSS

Advertisement

The voluntary test moratorium has been in place as part of an effort to maintain nuclear stability. The U.S currently uses scientific experiments and supercomputer simulations to make sure its bombs still work.

Last year, NPR was one of a handful of organizations granted rare access to the top-secret underground tunnels where the tests take place. Scientists working in the tunnels said they were confident they could continue to ensure the safety of America’s nuclear weapons without testing.

Although a full-scale nuclear detonation would be “complementary” to current experiments, “our assessment is that there are no system questions that would be answered by a test, that would be worth the expense and the effort and the time,” Don Haynes, a nuclear weapons scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratory told NPR as they walked through the tunnels.

Indeed Hinderstein says, preparing for a nuclear test is no small matter. While a basic demonstration test could be done in approximately 18 months. Conducting a test that would produce scientifically useful data would likely take years.

In this photo taken from video distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, the crew of the Bryansk nuclear submarine of the Russian navy prepares to conduct a practice launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile during the drills of Russia's nuclear forces.

In this photo taken from video distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, the crew of the Bryansk nuclear submarine of the Russian navy prepares to conduct a practice launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile during the drills of Russia’s nuclear forces.

AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press S

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press S

Advertisement

Trump’s announcement is likely reacting to some recent tests by Russia

On Sunday, Russia announced it had conducted a successful test of a new nuclear-powered cruise missile. Then on Wednesday President Vladimir Putin announced the successful test of another doomsday weapon — a nuclear-powered underwater drone, which Russia says can be used to attack coastal cities.

Trump never called out Russia by name, but he did suggest recent testing was behind the announcement. “I see them testing,” he said aboard Air Force One, “and I say, ‘Well if they’re going to test I guess we have to test.’”

While testing nuclear-powered weapons is not the same as testing nuclear weapons themselves, Russia’s tests are highly provocative. They come just months before the expiration of the last nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Russia, designed to put limits on their arsenals.

The back-and-forth has all the hallmarks of the start of an arms race, noted Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation for American Scientists.

“We saw this play out throughout the Cold War through nuclear testing, nuclear deployments, nuclear investments,” he said.

Advertisement

Many experts warn that now is not the time to resume nuclear testing

Hinderstein, who served as a deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency responsible for America’s nuclear weapons, from 2021-2024, said that a decision to resume testing would not be in America’s interests.

At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had conducted more than a thousand nuclear tests — far more than any other nation (China, by comparison had conducted just 45).

Other nations, “have more to gain by resuming nuclear testing than the United States does,” she said.

Testing would likely be expensive adds Paul Dean, vice president for global nuclear policy at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “The cost estimates I’ve seen have been at around, ballpark, $140 million per test,” he said.

Advertisement

“It’s not necessary to conduct a nuclear explosive test right now” agreed Robert Peters of the Heritage Foundation. But he added. “But there very well be compelling reasons to test in the coming months and years. That’s how bad things are getting.”

News

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Published

on

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

new video loaded: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

transcript

transcript

Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. A disaster. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens. I could talk about the culture that’s been created here. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist — this was directly from them — the day after he was killed, a nurse in our V.A., Alex — one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son. Do you have anything you want to say to Alex Pretti’s parents? Ma’am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said It appeared to be an incident of — I think the parents saw it for what it was. In a hearing — recent hearing before the HSGAC committee, C.B.P. and ICE officials testified under oath that their agencies did not inform you that Pretti was a domestic terrorist — during that hearing, stated during that hearing, I was getting reports from the ground, from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene. How did you think that calling them domestic terrorists at that scene was somehow going to calm the situation? The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.

Advertisement
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

By Christina Kelso and Jackeline Luna

March 3, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

Published

on

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

The Trump administration is sending pregnant unaccompanied minors to a South Texas shelter (above) flagged as medically inadequate by officials from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The facility is run by a for-profit contractor called Urban Strategies.

Patricia Lim/KUT News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Patricia Lim/KUT News

The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from some of the administration’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.

That’s according to seven officials who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which takes custody of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. The children remain in ORR’s care until they can be released to an adult or deported, or turn 18.

All of the officials asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Advertisement

Since late July, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been placed at the Texas facility, which is in the small border city of San Benito. Some were as young as 13, and at least half of those taken in so far became pregnant as a result of rape, the officials said. Their pregnancies are considered high risk by definition, particularly for the youngest girls.

“This group of kids is clearly recognized as our most vulnerable,” one of the officials said. Rank-and-file staff, the official said, are “losing sleep over it, wondering if kids are going to be placed in programs where they’re not going to have access to the care they need.”

The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies.

The ORR officials said they were never told why the girls are being concentrated in a single location, let alone in this particular shelter in Texas. But they — along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys — worry the Trump administration is knowingly putting the children at risk to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.

“This is 100% and exclusively about abortion,” said Jonathan White, a longtime federal health official who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program for part of President Trump’s first term. White, who recently retired from the government, said the administration tried and failed to restrict abortion access for unaccompanied minors in 2017. “Now they casually roll out what they brutally fought to accomplish last time and didn’t.”

Advertisement

Asked if the administration is sending pregnant children to San Benito to restrict their access to abortion, HHS said in a statement that the allegation was “completely inaccurate.”

In an earlier statement, the department said that “ORR’s placement decisions are guided by child welfare best practices and are designed to ensure each child is housed in the safest, most developmentally appropriate setting, including for children who are pregnant or parenting.”

But several of the ORR officials took issue with the department’s statement. “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization,” one of them said. “Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”

ORR’s acting director, Angie Salazar, instructed agency staff to send “any pregnant children” to San Benito beginning July 22, 2025, according to an internal email obtained as part of a six-month investigation by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom, public media collaboratives that worked together to produce this story.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.
hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Several of the officials said a handful of pregnant girls have mistakenly been placed in other shelters because immigration authorities didn’t know they were pregnant when they were transferred to ORR custody.

Since the July order, none of the pregnant girls at the San Benito facility have experienced major medical problems, according to the ORR officials and Aimee Korolev, deputy director of ProBAR, an organization that provides legal services to children there. They said several of the girls have given birth and are detained with their infants.

But ORR officials interviewed for this story said they worry the shelter is only one high-risk pregnancy away from catastrophe.

“I feel like we’re just waiting for something terrible to happen,” one of the officials said.

‘Blown away by the level of risk’

Advertisement

There are dozens of ORR shelters or foster homes across the country that are designated to care for pregnant unaccompanied children, according to several of the ORR officials, with 12 in Texas alone. None of them could recall a time when all of the pregnant minors in the agency’s custody were concentrated in one shelter.

Detaining them in San Benito, Texas, doctors and public health experts said, is a dangerous gambit.

“It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are,” said Annie Leone, a nurse midwife who recently spent five years caring for pregnant and postpartum migrant women and girls at a large family shelter not far from San Benito. “So, to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”

The specialized obstetric care that exists in Texas is mostly available in its larger cities, hours from San Benito. And several factors, including the high number of uninsured patients, have eroded the availability of health care across the state.

Furthermore, Texas’ near-ban on abortion has been especially devastating to obstetric care. The law allows an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s life is in danger or one of her bodily functions is at risk, but doctors have been confused as to what that means.

Advertisement

Many doctors have left to practice elsewhere, and those who’ve stayed are often scared to perform procedures they worry could come with criminal charges. While Texas passed a law clarifying the exceptions last year, experts have said it may not be enough to assuage doctors’ fears.

Several maternal health experts listed the potential dangers for the girls at the San Benito shelter: If one of them develops an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus), if she miscarries or if her water breaks too early and she gets an infection, the emergency care she needs could be delayed or denied by doctors wary of the abortion ban.

Getting the care that is available could take too long to save her life or the baby’s, they added.

Adolescents are also more likely to give birth early, which can be life-threatening for both mother and baby. The youngest face complications during labor and delivery because their pelvises aren’t fully developed, said Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, an obstetrician in Washington state who specializes in adolescent pregnancy.

“These are young adolescents who are still going through puberty,” she said. “Their bodies are still changing.”

Advertisement

Pregnant girls who recently endured the often harrowing journey to the U.S. face even more risk, obstetrics experts said. Experts who work with migrant children say many are raped along the way and contract sexually transmitted infections that can be dangerous during pregnancy. Add to that little to no access to prenatal care or proper nourishment, and then the trauma of being detained.

“You couldn’t set up a worse scenario,” said Dr. Blair Cushing, who runs a women’s health clinic in McAllen, about 45 minutes from San Benito. “I’m kind of blown away by the level of risk that they’re concentrating in this facility.”

A history of problems

The San Benito shelter is owned and operated by Urban Strategies, a for-profit company that has contracted with the federal government to care for unaccompanied children for more than a decade, according to USAspending.gov.

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement

The main building, an old tan brick Baptist Church, occupies a city block in downtown San Benito, a quiet town of about 25,000. The church was converted to a migrant shelter in 2015 and was managed by two other contractors before Urban Strategies took it over in 2021.

On a fall day last year, there were no signs of activity at the facility, though children’s lawn toys and playground equipment were visible behind a wooden fence. A guard was stationed at one of the entrances.

“It’s pretty quiet, just like it is today,” said Meliza Fonseca, who lives nearby. “That’s the way it is every day.”

She said she occasionally sees kids playing in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Reached by email, the founder and president of Urban Strategies, Lisa Cummins, wrote that the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve,” and directed any questions about ORR-contracted shelters to the federal government.

Advertisement

When asked about the San Benito facility, HHS wrote that “Urban Strategies has a long-standing record of delivering high-quality care to pregnant unaccompanied minors, with a consistently low staff turnover.”

But the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said that as recently as 2024, staff members at the shelter failed to arrange timely medical appointments for pregnant girls or immediately share critical health information with the federal agency and discharged some of them without arrangements to continue their medical care.

ORR barred the shelter from receiving pregnant girls from September to December of 2024 while Urban Strategies implemented a remediation plan, but the plan did not add staff or enhance their qualifications, the officials said.

Some of the officials said ORR’s leadership was provided with a list of shelters that are better prepared to handle children with high-risk pregnancies. All of those shelters are outside Texas, in regions where the full range of necessary medical care is available. Yet the directive to place them at San Benito remains in place.

“It’s cruel, it’s just cruel,” one of the officials said. “They don’t care about any of these kids. They’re playing politics with children’s health.”

Advertisement

‘A dress rehearsal’

Jonathan White, who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program from January of 2017 to March of 2018, said he wasn’t surprised to learn that the new administration is moving pregnant unaccompanied children to Texas.

“I’ve been expecting this since Trump returned to office,” White said in an interview.

He said he views the San Benito order as a continuation of an anti-abortion policy shift that began in 2017, which “ultimately proved to be a dress rehearsal for the current administration.”

Scott Lloyd, the agency’s director at the time, denied girls in ORR custody permission to end their pregnancies, court records show. Lloyd also required the girls to get counseling about the benefits of motherhood and the harms of abortion and personally pleaded with some of them to reconsider.

Advertisement

“I worked to treat all of the children in ORR care with dignity, including the unborn children,” Lloyd told the newsrooms in an email.

In the fall of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lloyd and the Trump administration on behalf of pregnant girls in ORR custody. The ACLU argued that denying the girls abortions violated their constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Not long after the lawsuit was filed, White said, he received a late-night phone call from Lloyd, who had a request. He wanted White to transfer an unaccompanied pregnant girl who was seeking an abortion to a migrant shelter in Texas, where, under state law, it would have been too late for her to terminate her pregnancy. White said that he believed following the order would have been unlawful because it might have denied the girl access to legal relief under the lawsuit, so he refused. The girl was not transferred.

Lloyd, who has since left the government, acknowledged making the request but said he didn’t think it was illegal.

The lawsuit was settled in 2020; the first Trump administration agreed not to impede abortion access for migrant youth in federal custody going forward. Four years later, the Biden administration cemented the deal in official regulations: If a child who wanted to terminate her pregnancy was detained in a state where it was not legal, ORR had to move them to a state where it was.

Advertisement

That rule remains in place, and the agency appears to be following it: ORR has transferred two pregnant girls out of Texas since July, though the agency officials said one of the girls chose not to terminate her pregnancy.

But now that Trump is back in office, his administration is working to end the policy.

‘Elegant and simple’

Even before Trump won reelection, policymakers in his circle were planning a renewed attempt to restrict abortion rights for unaccompanied minors.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a politically conservative overhaul of the federal government, called for ORR to stop facilitating abortions for children in its care. The plan advised the government not to detain unaccompanied children in states where abortion is available.

Advertisement

Such a change is now possible, Project 2025 argued, because Roe v. Wade is no longer an obstacle. Since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in 2022, there is no longer a federal right to abortion.

Upon returning to office, Trump signed an executive order “to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Then, in early July, the Department of Justice reconsidered a longstanding federal law, known as the Hyde Amendment, that governs the use of taxpayer money for abortion. The DOJ concluded that the government cannot pay to transport detainees from one state to another to facilitate abortion access, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

And now, ORR is working to rescind the Biden-era requirement that pregnant girls requesting an abortion be moved to states where it’s available. On Jan. 23, the agency submitted the proposed change for government approval, though it has not yet published the details.

Several of the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear whether children in the agency’s custody who have been raped or need emergency medical care will still be allowed to get abortions.

Advertisement

“HHS does not comment on pending or pre-decisional rulemaking,” the department wrote when asked for details of the regulatory change. “ORR will continue to comply with all applicable federal laws, including requirements for providing necessary medical care to children in ORR custody.”

The day the change was submitted, an unnamed Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Daily Signal, a conservative news site, “Our goal is to save lives both for these young children that are coming across the border, that are pregnant, and to save the lives of their unborn babies.”

Experts who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear why the government would concentrate pregnant children in one Texas shelter, rather than disperse them at shelters throughout the state. But they said they’re convinced that the San Benito directive and the anti-abortion rule change are meant to work hand in hand: Once pregnant children are placed at the San Benito shelter, the new regulations could mean they cannot be moved out of Texas to get abortions — even if keeping them there puts them at risk.

“It’s so elegant and simple,” said White, the former head of the unaccompanied children program. “All they have to do is send them to Texas.”

Mark Betancourt is a freelance journalist and regular contributor to The California Newsroom.

Advertisement

Mose Buchele with The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.

This story was produced by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom. The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets that includes NPR, CalMatters, KQED (San Francisco), LAist and KCRW (Los Angeles), KPBS (San Diego) and other stations across the state. The Texas Newsroom is a public radio journalism collaboration that includes NPR, KERA (North Texas), Houston Public Media, KUT (Austin), Texas Public Radio (San Antonio) and other stations across the state.

Continue Reading

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

Trending