Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of quarterly news summaries and analyses about President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. We’ll check in with one long, big-picture update every 25 days, with a regular flow of updates in between to keep you up on news affecting the U.S. nuclear deterrent during the new administration’s crucial first days.
President Donald Trump has during the first half of his initial 100 days in office moved to fill the senior positions that will shape his administration’s approach to nuclear deterrence, which has not yet been clearly outlined. With a Department of Energy secretary now confirmed, Trump must determine the future leadership of the agency’s semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration; many in the industry say it will be difficult to predict the White House’s nuclear policy until that time.
The NNSA uses the large majority of its roughly $13 billion annual budget to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Changes in either the NNSA budget, its mission, or both, will become clearer once new agency leadership takes over the work of the last administration’s holdovers. In the meantime, here is a glimpse of where things stand for policy-making and the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
PERSONNEL
Former Texas governor Rick Perry has been confirmed as secretary of energy, filling a key role responsible for sustaining the nation’s nuclear deterrent, among other missions. This was Perry’s first full week on the job; while major policy decisions are unlikely to be crafted immediately, the fiscal 2018 DOE budget to be rolled out in coming weeks will be a telling sign of Perry’s vision.
Obama administration holdover Frank Klotz is still serving as head of the NNSA while the new leadership considers other candidates for the role. Former agency deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation and current Fluor executive Paul Longsworth is said to be under consideration, as is retired Navy admiral Jay Cohen. Longsworth is rumored to be getting a look for a less senior position as well, along with Rob Hood, CH2M vice president for government affairs, and Willie Clark, federal business development manager at engineering consulting firm Burns & McDonnell.
Eric Knox, a senior project director for AECOM’s nuclear and environmental branch, said last week at the ExchangeMonitor’s annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, “Unless they start getting some of these people in these positions that you can go and talk to, I don’t know that we’re going to have a real clear sense of policy direction.”
Trump has secured several other Cabinet positions key to nuclear deterrence and arms control, including former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and retired Marine Corps. Gen. James Mattis as secretary of defense. Meanwhile, hundreds of other appointed positions remain vacant across the federal government.
One of those was filled by Thomas Countryman until the end of January: acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. The department’s top arms control position manages the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
The NNSA’s personnel concerns might not end at the leadership level. Last week, Madelyn Creedon, who until recently served as the agency’s principal deputy administrator, said at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit that a congressionally mandated cap of 1,690 federal employees at the NNSA could hinder its work. “NNSA needs relief from this cap . . . to manage current programs,” she said, recommending increasing the cap by 100 employees.
We’re watching for: new NNSA leadership.
POLICY
The administration’s nuclear policy will remain the subject of some speculation in the near term. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with ties to the new administration, on March 2 released a paper recommending focusing the mission of the Department of Energy on maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent and cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex. Those missions already eat up roughly half of DOE’s $30 billion annual budget.
This shift, Heritage said, would involve “limiting science spending to government needs and basic research while encouraging more flexibility and responsibility at America’s national laboratories; and eliminating the department’s intervention in energy markets.”
Perry, Klotz’s replacement, and the NNSA’s yet-to-be-announced leadership will define the DOE and NNSA mission as well as shape their corresponding budgets. The Trump administration is rumored to be planning federal funding cuts that would cut 10 percent of the DOE budget and redirect some funding into the NNSA’s defense programs. Funding within the NNSA might also be reshuffled, potentially by taking away from nonproliferation and disarmament programs to give more to the weapons program.
The NNSA’s weapons activities receive $8.8 billion at the currently enacted fiscal 2016 level, while the defense nuclear nonproliferation category – which includes nonproliferation, global material security, and material management and minimization efforts – receives $1.9 billion.
Creedon said last week that should NNSA funding increase, she would recommend putting some of that toward enhanced surveillance of the nuclear stockpile, in addition to technology maturation programs and infrastructure, to address the $3.7 billion and growing deferred maintenance backlog at the agency’s facilities.
A key policy issue is the future of the MOX facility under construction at DOE’s Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. The Obama administration tried to shut down the project but met resistance from Congress, which has so far maintained funding for construction.
The NNSA gave MOX contractor CB&I AREVA MOX Services 9 percent of its award fee in its fiscal 2016 performance evaluation, calling the contractor’s cost, schedule, and technical performance “unsatisfactory.” But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 2 lauded the contractor’s construction activities and safety performance last year. The Trump administration will need to decide whether to continue MOX construction or switch to the alternative method of plutonium dilution and disposal.
Trump in late January signed a national security memorandum requiring the development of a new Nuclear Posture Review to set U.S. deterrence policy for up to a decade. The Defense Department expects this spring to complete the NPR, which appears likely to focus on modernization of the nuclear deterrent, continuing the program that is expected to cost $1 trillion over 30 years to upgrade each leg of the triad.
“The early signs point to a good understanding of what it takes to have a credible deterrent. Keeping Gen. Klotz on was a wise move,” an industry official said this week of the new administration. “But in terms of changes – nothing really notable yet, and that’s understandable. The next 50 days may be more telling as Secretary Perry settles in and the next level of appointee positions are announced.”
We’re watching for: Perry’s take on DOE’s mission.
ARMS CONTROL
Administration officials last month determined Russia has deployed a ground-launched cruise missile that violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which prohibits the two countries from fielding surface-to-surface ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said at the time, “The Administration is undertaking an extensive review of Russia’s ongoing INF Treaty violation in order to assess the potential security implications for the United States and its allies and partners.”
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit that the primary mission of Russia’s cruise missile “is probably not nuclear, but conventional.” He said the United States should not abandon the treaty despite the violation. “If we pull out, we would remove the pressure on Russia to move back into compliance. I think we just have to keep the pressure on them,” Kristensen said.
Air Force generals this week noted that the administration’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review will outline possible U.S. responses to the INF breach.
Observers generally agree that resolution of the INF Treaty issue will have a significant impact on any future arms control agreement the United States negotiates – primarily a potential follow-on to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is meant to cap the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia by next February. Trump, who reportedly last month called it an unfair deal, will have to decide whether to extend the agreement once it expires in 2021, negotiate a follow-on, or abandon it entirely. The administration has made no clear indication yet of the choice it will make.
We’re watching for: Discussions on resolving INF Treaty issues.
