Editor’s note: This is the first 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.
DAY 1 – JAN. 20, 2017: Inauguration Day.
President Donald Trump takes office today, inheriting the responsibilities of oversight over the U.S. nuclear arsenal and shaping of the leadership and mission of the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
Outgoing president Barack Obama’s legacy in this area has included U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal reductions through the bilateral New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, four high-level Nuclear Security Summits, and the promotion of global partnerships to secure nuclear material and counter nuclear smuggling worldwide. In an exit memo presented last week, outgoing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the DOE will maintain through stockpile stewardship its nuclear weapons without nuclear explosive testing, carry out its life extension programs, and monitor and implement nuclear security and nonproliferation agreements.
While much of the NNSA’s work is expected to remain on track from the Obama administration through the Trump administration, Trump and his team have offered commentary throughout the presidential campaign and after the election that suggest some changes throughout the nuclear complex. Here, we discuss some areas of note:
PERSONNEL
What We Know
Trump has nominated former Texas governor Rick Perry as energy secretary, retired Marine Corps. Gen. James Mattis as defense secretary, and former ExxonMobile CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.
Neither Perry nor Mattis are expected to face the deep opposition found against other Cabinet picks, though there have been questions about Perry’s readiness due to his lack of experience in nuclear weapons matters – nearly half of the DOE’s annual budget is directed to the National Nuclear Security Administration, tasked with maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable deterrent. Still, other observers have said management skills are more important for Cabinet secretaries than subject-matter expertise.
Now-former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz confirmed that he has spoken with Perry, who he considers “very committed to moving the department forward.” Perry said during his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday that he regrets previously recommending the elimination of the Department of Energy and said, “I’ll be focused on continuing to protect and modernize the nation’s nuclear stockpile.”
What We’ve Heard
The actual nuclear arms work happens at the NNSA, where the leadership question appears to be in flux.
Following reports that the NNSA’s top two officials were being ousted, an NNSA official said last week that Trump’s transition team had not held any discussions with the agency’s political appointees on staying in their roles past Inauguration Day. This indicates that current NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz and Principal Deputy Administrator Madelyn Creedon might be out as of today. Both have served in their current positions since 2014.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) sent a letter Wednesday to Trump expressing concern over NNSA and Defense Department continuity of operations and asking Trump’s team to keep Klotz and Creedon in their positions through the transition process. Heinrich asked Perry the same question during the hearing Thursday, to which Perry responded, “it would certainly be my desire to have that continuity. It is in [Trump’s] office now.”
Meanwhile, the transition team is still actively considering candidates to fill the role of NNSA administrator. One of them is rumored to be Paul Longsworth, a Fluor executive and former NNSA deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation. Another name reportedly under consideration is Jay Cohen, a retired Navy admiral who served in the Department of Homeland Security.
We’re watching for: New appointees for top NNSA posts.
TRUMP’S ACTION PLAN
What We Know
Trump’s 100-day action plan includes few items that could have some impact on the NNSA. Among those is his proposal for a hiring freeze on all federal employees “to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).” NNSA boasts a total workforce of over 25,000 employees – over 2,000 are federal employees. Another is a plan to partner with Congress to introduce legislation expanding military investment. The budget details of such a plan are still unclear, but the expansion of military investment could have an impact on the DOD’s nuclear forces.
What We’ve Heard
A source familiar with the NNSA said a hiring freeze would be tough on agencies to function, particularly without all the political appointees in place to support the staff. This is particularly true for an agency like the NNSA, which has struggled with the challenge of recruiting and retaining the next generation of stockpile stewards. Such a hiring freeze, the source said, would mean “that problem gets worse.” Otherwise, NNSA programs are unlikely to be significantly affected by a change in administration, as these programs have been established through the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
“I don’t believe a hiring freeze will significantly affect DOE or the labs, even if it continues for some time,” Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said by email. “The labs, in particular Sandia [National Laboratories], have added hundreds of new staff as the several major weapon programs ramp up. I am confident they could cover any gaps if need be.”
An NNSA spokesperson said “it would be premature” for the agency to currently speculate on this issue and suggested checking back after Trump’s inauguration.
Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, deputy secretary of energy since 2014, wrote in a Tuesday editorial published in The Hill, “When possible federal hiring freezes are mentioned casually, our workforce is concerned about its capacity to support our critical responsibilities.”
The workforce “is aging, and we must develop a new generation of professionals to compensate for upcoming retirements,” Sherwood-Randall said. “DOE and the broader federal government need to attract that new generation by managing an exciting mission space and embracing the values that make today’s workplaces successful, productive, and motivating.”
Michaela Dodge, senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said by email that a hiring freeze “might have a mild negative effect but [is] unlikely to significantly impact the labs.”
“The difficulties that labs have are long-term and driven by structural challenges,” Dodge said. “A temporary freeze does not alter/address those.”
We’re watching for: Shifts in NNSA workforce/hiring.
NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION
What We Know
Trump tweeted last month, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” raising questions about what such a program of nuclear expansion would entail, considering the United States’ current plan to spend $1 trillion over 30 years to upgrade each leg of the nuclear triad.
Tillerson said during his Senate confirmation hearing last week that the president would be committed to maintaining the nuclear arsenal within the limits outlined in existing arms control agreements. Mattis said during his confirmation hearing last week that he would support the Defense Department’s nuclear triad modernization plans – more specifically that he was committed to the Columbia-class submarine, the B-21 stealth bomber, and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent programs, but that he would “need to look” at the long-range standoff nuclear cruise missile program to determine its deterrent capability.
These programs all span decades and will leave Trump’s Defense Department in charge of issuing contract awards for various stages of weapons system design and development. As of his inauguration, Northrop Grumman holds the contract for the B-21 Raider bomber, with production set for the 2020s. General Dynamics Electric Boat is leading a contract for the design of 12 Columbia-class vessels. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin all confirmed their bids for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent contract, which is expected to be awarded in the summer.
The Air Force plans to award in fiscal 2018 a contract for the controversial Long Range Standoff nuclear cruise missile, which is expected to cost between $20 billion and $30 billion for around 1,000 missiles. The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution until March 31 that freezes funding at fiscal 2016 levels, meaning that specific plans beyond this are likely to become clear once the new administration issues its new budget proposal.
What We’ve Heard
The potential for new weapons with new capabilities may still be on the table, although the incoming administration has not outlined specific plans to this end. There is precedent here; the George W. Bush presidency explored the possibility of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator “bunker buster,” though it did not proceed with development. Analysts and the defense industry seem to agree, however, that U.S. nuclear modernization plans are likely to remain largely unchanged.
A new defense appropriations bill could alter DOD procurement plans – the LRSO is a potential target, for instance. Energy appropriations legislation might shift the focus of some aspects of NNSA operations – perhaps to de-emphasize warhead dismantlement or modify lab funding on items not directly related to nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship.
In terms of high-level policy, the Trump administration may call for a new Nuclear Posture Review to set its nuclear policy priorities and outline its agenda. This, in addition to the administration’s budget proposal, will offer greater clarity on Trump’s potential actions in this area.
We’re watching for: Budget-driven changes to DOD nuclear forces, particularly in the LRSO program.
U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
What We Know
Trump suggested in an interview published Monday he might pursue a nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia in exchange for an easing of U.S. sanctions on the Kremlin. He told the London Times, “They have sanctions on Russia – let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.”
Trump has not said when, or even whether, he would formally initiate such discussions. Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reportedly said Monday that there should be no connection between those two issues. Even so, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday in a Reuters article, “I am convinced we will be able to restart a dialogue on strategic stability with Washington that was destroyed along with everything else by the Obama administration.”
The United States and Russia are currently both in good standing under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which requires by February 2018 that each side cap its nuclear arsenal at 700 deployed ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers; 1,550 fielded strategic warheads; and 800 deployed and nondeployed long-range launchers. These limits will expire in 2021; the Trump administration will be responsible for deciding whether to negotiate a new follow-on treaty, extend New START for the five additional years it offers as an option, or abandon bilateral arms control entirely.
Complicating this decision is the deterioration in the U.S.-Russian relationship since Russia’s incursion into Crimea in 2014. In the wake of new U.S. and allied sanctions on Russia, Putin withdrew his government from the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit, suspended his nation’s participation in a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement, and canceled other peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements with the United States. Putin has not indicated much of an appetite for arms control measures beyond New START. In fact, Russian officials commented Monday that the Kremlin would not sacrifice its security for the sake of a lifting of sanctions, and that any such new initiative should be judged only after Trump takes office.
Another facet of the U.S.-Russian nonproliferation relationship involves the 2000 bilateral agreement that requires each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of nuclear weapon-usable plutonium. The United States originally chose the mixed oxide fuel fabrication process to convert the plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel by building the MOX facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
The Obama administration has tried to terminate the project and move forward with an alternative dilute and dispose option, arguing the new approach would save tens of billions of dollars and two decades from the work; this in part sparked Putin to withdraw from the deal last October. Now, MOX facility advocates – and South Carolina’s delegation to Congress – hope Trump will reverse course and continue construction of the facility. His new budget will shape the direction of this issue; House and Senate energy appropriators have so far proposed funding for MOX, and both chambers’ version of the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act would allow $340 million to continue construction.
What We’ve Heard
Miles Pomper, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said by email that the United States’ Russia policy will remain a source of tension under the Trump administration. “You can expect tensions within the executive branch certainly between Trump himself, some Trump appointees and career professionals in the Pentagon and intelligence community,” as well as between Trump and some Senate Republicans who take a hard-line stance against Russia, Pomper said. He noted that some heads of agencies, such as Mattis, may side with career professionals in their departments.
“Internationally, he is likely to face concerns in Eastern and Central Europe over his Russia policy,” Pomper said. “Given these tensions and the domestic political issues surrounding Russia’s influence in the campaign it will be in his interest to clarify his Russia policy ASAP or risk having his presidency hijacked by the issue.”
Young said by email that it is very difficult to predict the Trump presidency’s shaping of its relations with Russia. “Beyond the normal, already complicated set of US-Russian arms control issues, we have the major split between almost the entirety of the Republican party and the incoming president on how to view Russia. A positive thaw is possible, but so too are misunderstandings and mistakes,” he said.
According to Dodge, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Vladimir Putin decided to test the new president in some way.”
We’re watching for: A thaw in U.S.-Russian relations, particularly through arms control negotiations.
