Trump Is Leaving the Nuclear Oversight Agency With No One in Charge

“If this goes on for any extended period of time,” says one nuclear expert, “bad things are going to happen.”

Cindy Yamanaka/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Monday, Gizmodo reported the alarming news that Donald Trump’s transition team had dismissed two political appointees who run the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), without replacements on tap to oversee the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The story was “inaccurate,” an official with the Department of Energy, which oversees the NNSA, subsequently told Mother Jones. “There have been no discussions between the president-elect’s transition team and any of NNSA’s political appointees on extending their public service past January 20.” That is, the Trump team didn’t exactly send the two officials—retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz and his deputy, Madelyn Creedon—packing; it just had not held any talks about keeping them on after President Barack Obama’s term expires, and their appointments will automatically end. So the end result is the same: By the end of next week, the government division that oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons could lack its senior leadership—a prospect that concerns some nuclear experts.

“You won’t have senior-level oversight,” says Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, an organization focused on nuclear weapons security. “You won’t have somebody actually running the department. You can do that for a little while, but if this goes on for any extended period of time, bad things are going to happen.”

The Trump transition team and Hope Hicks, Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, did not respond to requests for comment.

Cirincione says the NNSA, with a $12 billion annual budget, oversees not only the nation’s nuclear stockpile but the contractors involved in maintaining it and its supporting infrastructure. And while the day-to-day mission of the agency will go on, strategic decisions and other senior-level responsibilities will fall by the wayside.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit dedicated to better control of nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons, says it’s normal for political appointees to be out the door at the end of the administration that appointed them. But the NNSA head, even if a political appointee, typically stays put until a successor is in place, according to Defense News.

“It does begin to affect the government if it goes on for a while,” Kimball says. “It’s not a crisis if it’s the situation for a couple months.”

Rebecca Friedman Lissner, a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says context is important. Broadly speaking, “very few sub-cabinet officials have been named,” she says, so it’s “not particularly surprising that we don’t yet know who would be taking over NNSA.” But the NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency with a “tradition of professionalism and bipartisanship such that there has been continuity in terms of people who have stayed over.”

As reported by Defense News, NNSA heads have sometimes stayed years into subsequent administrations. It happened with John Gordon, who was appointed by Bill Clinton and stayed two years into the first George W. Bush administration, and with Tom D’Agostino, who was appointed by George W. Bush and served six years into the Obama administration.

Lissner says that a gap in agency leadership will have to be judged in terms of whether Trump plans a major shakeup of nuclear policy, which would require more detailed reviews by the relevant officials. If not, filling the role is less urgent, she says.

“Either way, the NNSA mission is a vital mission,” she says. “It’s a no-fail mission, [and] they manage an incredibly challenging and important and often overlooked portfolio.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate