The New START Treaty, a 2010 arms control agreement that imposes numerical caps (or central limits) on deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons at intercontinental ranges, is set to expire on February 5, 2026. The treaty's provisions do not allow for an extension beyond this date. U.S. and Russian officials have not negotiated a follow-on agreement since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In September 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia was prepared to uphold the treaty's central limits for one year following its expiration. The treaty caps U.S. and Russian strategic forces at 700 deployed launchers equipped for strategic nuclear weapons (intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs; submarine-launched missiles, or SLBMs; and heavy bombers), 1,550 warheads on deployed launchers, and a total 800 deployed and nondeployed launchers. Putin also said the Russian proposal would be "only feasible if the United States acts in a similar spirit and refrains from steps that would undermine or disrupt the existing balance of deterrence." While President Donald J. Trump initially reportedly expressed interest in Putin's proposal, Russian officials have said the United States has not formally responded. On January 8, President Trump reportedly said of the agreement, "If it expires, it expires."
Congress plays a role in arms control, which is implemented pursuant to treaties or agreements negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate's 2010 resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty states that "further arms reduction agreements … may be made only pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President as set forth in Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States." However, the executive branch may pursue a nonbinding or political commitment to extend New START central limits that may not require Senate action.
Some Members of Congress have debated the issue of nuclear arms control with Russia. A December 10, 2025, hearing featured witnesses associated with the Congressional Commission on the U.S. Strategic Posture (Strategic Posture Commission, or SPC) with diverging opinions on whether the United States should agree to extend New START central limits. The following summarizes ongoing debate among U.S. experts on this issue.
At the core of the debate has been whether a U.S. yearlong extension of central limits with Russia would hamper U.S. efforts to credibly deter a growing nuclear arsenal of the People's Republic of China (PRC, or China) or help to forestall what some see as an arms race.
The 2023 SPC final report, which proposed recommendations for U.S. deterrence in a "two-nuclear-peer" environment in the 2027-2035 timeframe, argued the United States needed to "prepare" to increase the number of warheads deployed on existing strategic launchers. Such an increase, or upload, of warheads would require the United States to reverse measures taken to comply with New START. These measures included a decrease in the number of warheads deployed on ICBMs and the conversion of some SLBM launch tubes and heavy bombers to not carry nuclear weapons.
Some opponents of the extension have contended it would preclude the United States from increasing the number of warheads deployed on existing launchers (a process that some have said may take several years) or from taking steps to increase the U.S. order of new ballistic missile submarines and heavy bombers. Some have argued that it could "create a political dynamic in which recurring renewals become expected, narrowing future U.S. options."
Some proponents of the extension have contended that it would allow the United States "more time to decide what to do about the ongoing Chinese buildup without having to worry simultaneously about new Russian deployments." They have argued it would "not prejudice our planning and preparation to upload." Others have stated, while it will take time for China to build up its arsenal, Russia could "build up faster than the United States." Still others have maintained that an extension "could slow, if only for one year, a three-way nuclear arms race with Russia and China that has begun gathering steam."
Some experts have expressed concern with Russia's treaty compliance and have argued for verification in any deal with Russia. In congressionally mandated New START Annual Implementation Reports, the U.S. Department of State has outlined its determinations of Russia's noncompliance, including of its unilateral suspension of the treaty's verification regime in 2023. The United States has since relied on so-called national technical means (NTM), such as satellites, for monitoring Russia's declared commitment to New START central limits.
Some have argued, because Putin's proposal does not include verification, it is unclear "whether his offer is made in good faith." Others have contended a restart of New START inspections and data exchanges, prior to the treaty's expiration, could establish a baseline for an informal extension of limits. They also have raised concerns about the expiration of New START provisions that forbid interfering with NTM, such as the jamming of satellites.
Some experts have said Russian novel nuclear capabilities developed after signing of the treaty, such as its Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile, as well as its new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, must be considered for inclusion in any central limits extension. Others have maintained that an extension of strategic forces limits does not address the disparity between the United States and Russia in nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Still others have pointed to concerns with Russia's potential preparations to place "a nuclear weapon in orbit."
Debates over the desirability and feasibility of bilateral and trilateral arms control continue. Some experts also disagree on the sources of U.S. leverage that could bring Russia and China to such negotiations. Some have argued that an extension with Russia could create leverage for future negotiation with China. Others have said an extension could "deprive" the United States of such leverage.
During the December 10, 2025, congressional hearing, Members and witnesses discussed how an interagency assessment of U.S. nuclear policies, such as a Nuclear Posture Review, could contribute to the development of U.S. nuclear force requirements and arms control goals for a "two-nuclear-peer" environment. It is unclear if the Trump Administration plans to conduct such a review.