President Donald Trump is proposing a 25 percent increase in nuclear weapons spending that will include developing a new warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to a preliminary 2021 budget overview released Monday.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous branch of the U.S. Energy Department, would see its budget increase by 18.4 percent to $19.8 billion next fiscal year, partly to ramp up production of plutonium pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

Weapons spending would climb to $15.6 billion to help modernize the nuclear stockpile — from extending the life of existing warheads to modifying a land-based intercontinental ballistic warhead to equipping submarines with the new W93 warhead, Energy Department officials said during a conference call with reporters.

“The president has chosen to put the U.S. back into the nuclear game,” Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said.

Anti-nuclear watchdogs denounced the proposal to increase weapons spending.

“Taxpayers in 2020 should not be forced to pay for a ticket back to nuclear weapons policies of the 1980s,” John Tierney, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said in a statement.

Pit production funding wasn’t included in the overview. Energy Department officials said a full budget proposal would become available in the coming weeks.

About $2 billion would be earmarked for activities to foster nonproliferation, an increase of 4.5 percent, or $87 million, from this year’s level, the agency said in a news release.

Tierney said he was “greatly concerned” the funding for broader efforts of diplomacy and international affairs will be cut while Trump’s proposed $740 billion defense budget beefs up weapons spending.

“Globally, Trump’s nuclear weapons budget is fueling a new nuclear arms weapons race, particularly with a new plan for a new nuclear warhead,” said Jay Coghlan, executive director of New Mexico Nuclear Watch. “It solidifies Los Alamos lab’s future as a nuclear bomb plant, especially while nonproliferation, renewable energy and cleanup programs are held flat or cut.”

But Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who heads the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the stepped-up weapons funding is necessary to modernize the nuclear stockpile and infrastructure after “decades of neglect.”

The budget request, she said, “reflects President Trump’s strong commitment to ensuring the nation has a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent for many decades to come.”

The Trump administration and some senators have pushed for Los Alamos lab and Savannah River Site to produce a combined 80 nuclear cores a year by 2030 to arm a future generation of warheads, such as the new, land-based W87-1 for intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The pits might also be used for the new W93 warhead being developed for Trident II intercontinental missiles. They would be launched from submarines and could travel more than 3,000 miles.

There has been talk of the Navy developing this new warhead for subs, but this is the first official announcement that it would be deployed. The news comes shortly after the Defense Department’s recent controversial move to put “low-yield” nuclear weapons, known as W76-2s, on submarines.

Proponents say the low-yield warheads, whose six-kiloton blast is a fraction of the warheads traditionally carried on subs, will allow the U.S. a tactical option other than all-out nuclear war. It also will discourage Russia from launching its low-yield weapons if it knows the U.S. can exchange tit for tat, they say.

Critics contend this is a dangerous game: If the U.S. fired a low-yield warhead, an adversary like Russia would not know it’s not a full-powered one and could strike back with its full nuclear force.

“First public confirmation of ‘W93’ as proposed new Navy nuclear warhead,” tweeted Stephen Young, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Entirely unclear WHY Navy needs a new warhead. W76-1 upgrade was just completed. NNSA seems to want to build new things. EXPENSIVE new things.”

New warheads don’t justify the weapons budget swelling to the point that the Energy Department has no clue how it will spend all the money, said Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group.

The agency has yet to come up with a coherent plan on how to bring the lab’s old plutonium plant up to modern safety standards, Mello said.

“This is the largest proposed weapons design and production since the 1950s,” Mello said. “There are a lot of unanswered questions.”

(3) comments

Barry Rabkin

I would like the US to build at least 25 new submarines - all capable of launching nuclear weapons. Hopefully the US will also continue to build laser weapons able to be deployed from land, water, air, or outer space.

rodney carswell

we'll get right on that

Greg Mello

It would be great if all these commenters were on the same page, or even singing the same style of music. They are not, not by a long shot. And that is part of the core of the political problem we face. Council for a Livable World supports Democrats, period. Democrats like Martin Heinrich, who have pushed for more nuclear weapons. They pull very close to the opposite direction from the Los Alamos Study Group. Union of Concerned Scientists? They lie between these poles. I will see Stephen Young and others later today or tomorrow here in Washington, where I have come to try and undo some of the damage. We shall see what happens. But beware, New Mexicans! All these parties are comfortable with a plutonium pit factory at LANL. Every single one of them. New Mexicans who care about new priorities must cut through the fog and understand that whatever your opinion may be, your actual power lies in the degree of activity you display with regard to what you can actually change -- which is what happens in the greater Santa Fe area, including Los Alamos. If you want to be more involved, call 505-501-2606 (Lydia Clark) or write me at We can win. Many factors are lining up to help. But don't be lulled or confused. National-level opinions merely will not avail, unless you are here in Washington as I am, with expert entre to decisionmakers. Opinion means little by itself. Local actions, not just opinions, can definitely avail. Crystal clarity is needed, and you can tell the real from the fake resistance in part by whether and how hard the Democrats who have been pushing for pit production are being challenged.

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.