Nuclear weapons pose an existential risk not only because of their unparalleled destructive power, but also due to their sheer number, the acceleration of proliferation, and the fragility of global governance mechanisms. Today there are over 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world – nearly 90% held by Russia and the United States – many of which remain ready for deployment. While stockpiles have declined since their Cold War peak in the mid 1980s, the rate of reduction has slowed, and several states continue to modernize or expand their arsenals. The closest humanity has come to nuclear war in living memory was during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba brought the world to the brink of catastrophe. Though the Cold War has ended, risks are rising today.
Nuclear nonproliferation is one of the most underfunded yet existentially urgent challenges of our time. While governments spend trillions on weapons systems and philanthropy directs over $9 billion annually to climate, the nuclear threat reduction field operates on a mere $40–50 million a year. This funding shortfall has left the field stretched thin — undermining its ability to respond to rising global nuclear dangers and to innovate at the pace today’s risks demand.
To confront these challenges, we must treat nuclear nonproliferation not as a siloed technical issue but as a cornerstone of global governance reform. Strengthening this field means investing in intersectional research, supporting leadership from underrepresented communities, and fostering a new generation of thinkers who see nuclear risk in context — with climate change, technology disruption, democratic backsliding, and inequality. In short, nuclear field-building is not just about sustaining existing institutions, but about reimagining the ecosystem of actors, tools, and norms needed to manage 21st-century risks.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), opened for signature in 1968, remains the foundational agreement of the global nuclear order. Based on a “grand bargain,” non-nuclear weapon states agree to forgo weapons development in exchange for peaceful nuclear energy use and a commitment by nuclear-armed states (the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK) to pursue disarmament. With 191 countries as parties, it is the most widely adopted arms control treaty in existence. Yet today, the NPT is faltering. Progress on disarmament has stalled, enforcement is limited, and four of the world’s nine nuclear-armed states — India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea — are not parties. Without more visible progress by the nuclear weapon states, the NPT risks losing credibility with states that have upheld their end of the bargain.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a vital verification and monitoring role, ensuring compliance with safeguards agreements under the NPT. Its work has helped limit proliferation and avert nuclear accidents. Most recently, the IAEA’s efforts around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine demonstrated its role in preventing disaster under conditions of conflict. The IAEA’s independence, technical credibility, and neutrality must be preserved — and strengthened — to ensure that civilian nuclear programs are not diverted for weapons purposes and that all states benefit from the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), opened for signature in 1996, prohibits all nuclear explosions. Though not yet in force — largely due to non-ratification by key states including the US and China — it has created a powerful global norm against nuclear testing. Only North Korea has tested since the 21st century began. But that norm is under threat. The first Trump administration considered resuming US testing. Russia revoked its ratification in 2023. China, Russia, and the US have all invested in upgrading test sites. Without new political commitments and entry into force, the CTBT’s normative power may weaken.
Adopted in 2017 and in force since 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is the first legally binding instrument to outlaw nuclear weapons outright. While no nuclear-armed states have joined, the treaty has galvanized a powerful humanitarian discourse, led by non-nuclear states and civil society. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017, spearheaded the TPNW’s creation by centering the voices of hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), Indigenous communities affected by testing, and Global South nations. The TPNW has introduced a new moral and political axis into the disarmament debate — one that complements, rather than competes with, the NPT.
Even as global norms fray, regional dynamics are compounding nuclear risk. In the Middle East, the collapse of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) after the US withdrawal in 2018 has brought Iran closer to breakout capability. Before the current Iran-Israel war, there was a narrow window to revive negotiations before October 2025, when the EU was planning to reimpose UN sanctions. Iran warned that such a move could prompt its withdrawal from the NPT — a dangerous escalation that could have spurred Saudi Arabia and others to pursue their own weapons programs.
In Europe and Asia, growing mistrust of the US nuclear umbrella has prompted live debates in Poland, Germany, South Korea, and Japan over whether to pursue independent nuclear deterrents. The second Trump administration’s strained ties with NATO and Asia-Pacific allies have deepened these concerns. Meanwhile, China is on track to triple its arsenal by 2035. The US and Russia are spending heavily on nuclear modernization, while bilateral arms control agreements have collapsed. When New START expires in 2026, there may be no legal limits on US or Russian arsenals for the first time since the 1970s.
The most immediate opportunity for advancing nuclear threat reduction lies in supporting initiatives that connect nuclear risk to other global challenges. For example, Open Philanthropy recognizes nuclear weapons and rogue AI as part of a broader category of global catastrophic risks, tackling them as systemic threats rather than isolated policy domains. Funders could multiply their impact by co-funding initiatives that convene experts across domains — nuclear, climate, AI, public health, democracy — to design integrated risk reduction strategies.
Legal innovators are drawing on successful precedents from human rights litigation, environmental protections, and corporate accountability to forge new approaches to nuclear governance. The effort to apply these strategies to nuclear weapons — supported by Ploughshares and others — offers a promising model for creating accountability where traditional arms control has stalled. This work builds on a growing recognition that traditional nuclear governance has excluded those most affected by the nuclear weapons lifecycle. The success of the TPNW and ICAN’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning campaign demonstrated how centering historically marginalized perspectives — hibakusha, Indigenous communities exposed to nuclear testing, and Global South nations — can fundamentally reshape the debate. ICAN reframed nuclear weapons as a humanitarian catastrophe, not just a geopolitical dilemma, and in doing so, created new energy for disarmament.
Medical expertise has proven equally transformative. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, founded by American and Soviet doctors at the height of the Cold War, also won the Nobel Peace Prize — underscoring that nuclear war constitutes a global public health emergency, not merely a national security issue. This framing helped shift public consciousness and catalyze new policy thinking.
Philanthropy’s greatest strength lies in its ability to convene unlikely allies and experiment with new models. The creation of the Quincy Institute, co-funded by George Soros and Charles Koch, shows how shared concern over nuclear escalation can bridge ideological lines. But deeper change requires investing in leadership from women, Indigenous communities, and the Global South — those whose lived experiences and alternative frameworks challenge outdated security thinking.
Programs like Ploughshares’ Nuclear Futures Fellowship help build a more inclusive field equipped for today’s interconnected risks. Revitalizing nuclear governance isn’t just about policy — it’s about rethinking who leads, what counts as expertise, and how we define security. As in climate and tech, inclusive models are proving more resilient. Philanthropy can help bring that same transformation to nuclear risk.
To confront nuclear risks in the 21st century, we need more than more funding — we need better funding: investments that recognize nuclear weapons as inseparable from the broader challenges of climate, technology, equity, and democracy.
| Philanthropy plays a crucial role in advancing nuclear threat reduction by funding civil society engagement, supporting inclusive governance, and elevating underrepresented voices in global security debates. Foundations help broaden the field by investing in organizations led by women, Indigenous communities, and Global South experts, ensuring a more equitable and representative discourse around nuclear policy.
Leading funders support diverse networks of advocates, researchers, and storytellers working to reduce nuclear risks. For example, Ploughshares’ flagship Nuclear Futures Fellowship helps train the next generation of strategic thinkers with skills in foresight and intersectional analysis. Philanthropy also underwrites legal innovation in the nuclear space, adapting tools from human rights and environmental law to strengthen accountability and challenge traditional security frameworks. Initiatives like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, demonstrate the impact of civil society campaigns that reframe nuclear weapons as humanitarian and moral issues rather than geopolitical necessities. As nuclear risks intersect more deeply with climate change, technological disruption, and democratic backsliding, philanthropy’s role in fostering collaboration across sectors will be essential to building more resilient and inclusive global governance systems. |