WASHINGTON – For technical reasons there is no current need for the United States to conduct above-ground or underground nuclear weapons’ tests, David Beck, President Donald Trump’s nominee for deputy administrator of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told a Senate hearing Tuesday.
Beck was responding to Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), whose district includes the Nevada National Security Site. Rosen asked Beck if he would advise returning to explosive testing.
Beck testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee during a confirmation hearing for four Trump nominees, including Beck.
Beck has previously served as the deputy principal associate director of weapons programs at NNSA’s Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and as NNSA’s assistant deputy administrator for military applications and stockpile operations. Currently, he is vice president of Strategic Initiatives for Consolidated Nuclear Security, the management and operating contractor for Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
“There is a process to do an annual assessment to determine whether there’s a technical reason to do an underground test,” Beck said. “To my knowledge there are no plans to do a nuclear above ground explosion of any type.”
Beck is referring to the Annual Stockpile Assessment wherein the lab directors from Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories conduct a technical evaluation each year to determine the health and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The process helps identify any reason to return to a readiness to test nuclear weapons. Currently, as part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, it would take NNSA 24 to 36 months to plan and conduct an underground nuclear explosive test if directed by the president, but six to ten months for a simple test.
When Rosen clarified she meant an underground and above-ground explosive test, Beck said, “to the best of my knowledge, public available information, there is no reason to do, for technical reasons, an underground or above ground test.”
The U.S. has not tested nuclear weapons at full yield since 1992 and has only conducted subcritical, zero-yield experiments in a self-imposed moratorium that roughly mirrors the provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the country has not ratified.
Meanwhile, in the confirmation hearing of Brandon Williams, the newly sworn-in head of NNSA, Williams said he would “not advise” returning to critical testing, and should instead rely on the scientific data of the 928 critical nuclear weapons tests performed by the United States in the past.
Trump’s former national security advisor Robert O’Brien also argued in a 2024 op-ed for Foreign Affairs magazine that the U.S. should ignore the 1992 treaty as long as China and Russia refused to engage in peace talks with the U.S. During Trump’s campaign, Project 2025, a conservative policy document released last year and written by former Trump administration advisors, listed in its “needed reforms” that a “readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site [will] ensure the ability of the U.S. to respond quickly to asymmetric technology surprises.”
When Beck reiterated, “I don’t know the details of that particular project,” Rosen responded, “It’s not a project. It’s that we don’t want you to diminish or divert resources in favor of explosive testing versus critical advancement of science and innovation programs.”
When Beck answered, “I don’t have access to how the program has allocated resources,” Rosen replied, “I bet if I just went out on the street and asked someone ‘should we explode a nuclear bomb or should we use science to do it in other ways that are safe and secure and can validate the lethality of our nuclear arsenal and the readiness of our nuclear arsenal?’ I bet that I could find anybody at the grocery store that would say ‘Pease dear God do not explode another nuclear bomb on American soil.’”