Significant escalations in the war in Ukraine over the past weeks have heightened tensions between Russia and NATO to an alarming degree. North Korean troops have joined Russian forces in Ukraine, the outgoing Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-provided long-range missiles to strike within Russia, and Russia has responded by lowering its threshold for nuclear weapons use—including launching a nuclear-capable missile into Ukraine. The world is arguably closer to nuclear war than at any point since the Cold War.

With Donald Trump’s inauguration looming, the conflict’s already precarious dynamics could shift further, amplifying the risk of nuclear escalation. Despite these dire stakes, debates over nuclear weapons and proliferation were conspicuously absent from the 2024 presidential race, reflecting a broader erosion of attention to nuclear policy in the national consciousness. The United States no longer seems to be a steward—or even a proponent—of arms control.

On January 20, Donald Trump will regain the authority to unilaterally decide whether to launch nuclear weapons during a crisis. This scenario is far from improbable; U.S. intelligence leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine predicted that the likelihood of Russia using a nuclear weapon could rise to 50 percent. Such an event would leave the president with the grave decision of whether to retaliate in kind, potentially escalating an already volatile situation.

Trump’s history of nuclear bluster during his first term suggests that this authority may go unchecked by a cabinet selected more for loyalty than for expertise. It is imperative to push nuclear issues back into public discourse. An informed citizenry could strengthen norms against nuclear weapons use and serve as a counterbalance to reckless rhetoric and policy. However, the absence of public engagement on these issues is striking.

In the runup to November, Trump faced no questions about his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018—a move that spurred Iran to restart its nuclear program. Similarly, there was no scrutiny of the nuclear policy proposals in Project 2025, which include expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal beyond treaty limits and preparing to test a nuclear weapon for the first time since 1992, a violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

This glaring omission is symptomatic of a larger trend: the sidelining of foreign policy in American politics. According to an April Pew Research Poll, only 14% of Americans believed international affairs should take precedence over domestic issues, a significant drop from 23% in 2019. This disinterest persists even as the world faces intensifying great power competition between the U.S. and China, alongside active conflicts involving nuclear states. The relentless churn of domestic political news has distracted Americans from what may be the gravest existential threat of our time—the specter of nuclear conflict.

Meanwhile, Russia is leveraging its nuclear arsenal to intimidate NATO and deter intervention in Ukraine. China, in a significant departure from its traditional posture, is rapidly expanding its own nuclear arsenal. Adding to the instability, the New START Treaty—the last remaining arms control agreement between the United States and Russia—is set to expire in 2026. The era of global cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation appears to be unraveling, leaving a vacuum of oversight and collaboration.

Public apathy toward these developments is reflected in the lack of collective action reminiscent of the 1980s Nuclear Freeze movement. The atomic panic of the Cold War—when Americans built fallout shelters and schools conducted nuclear drills—has given way to a troubling ignorance. A 2024 Pew Research Poll revealed that while “stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction” ranked as the third highest foreign policy priority, a 2023 survey found that most Americans felt they lacked sufficient knowledge about nuclear weapons to assess their potential risks or benefits. This lack of understanding creates fertile ground for manipulation by political leaders whose policies could jeopardize national security and global stability.

Now is the time to reignite a constructive national dialogue about nuclear weapons. The stakes could not be higher. The future of global security may depend on a more informed and engaged public—one capable of demanding accountability and advocating for policies that reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe. Apathy is no longer an option; our collective future may well hinge on our willingness to confront the unthinkable and act decisively.