By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS

The future of nuclear deterrence has at least four major challenges as we move toward the 2028 Presidential election. And US nuclear policy might significantly change as the incumbent President will not be running. If you take into account an incumbent President or Vice President running in each Presidential election year, an incumbent has always run from 1972-2024 or a period of 52 years or greater than half a century.

Except twice--2008 and 2016. And each time, the party not in power won, as over half the people believed the country was going in the wrong direction. In 2028 a lot will be determined by what happens in 2026 in the midterm elections.

Going forward, in the next election, the US will face four nuclear challenges: (1) maintaining the pace of nuclear force recapitalization/modernization; (2) ending the Iranian nuclear proliferation threat; (3) securing and enhancing for our allies extended strategic nuclear deterrence; and (4) deterring and keeping in check the behavior of North Korea, China, Russia and Iran, or the “Four Brothers Mayhem.”

Presidential elections are not complicated. Take the starkest foreign policy and domestic policy reality. As Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) explained, there is no chance for the incumbent or a candidate of the same party to win if the party policies simply “suck.” So, policy can switch and switch big time, as Americans say out with the old and in with the new. But its hard to run against the incumbent where you are the incumbent or the incumbent party.

In late 1980, Carter couldn’t get our diplomats released from Iran. And gasoline prices were up along with overall 14% inflation. He was thus a dead duck.

In 1992, Bush had raised taxes and repudiated Reagan’s successful economic policies in favor of kinder and gentler stuff, and the Democrats sand bagged him into raising taxes in a late 1990 budget deal linked to having to fight a war against Iraq in Kuwait. Another dead duck.

In 2000 Bush the son won because Gore refused to run on the Clinton-Gingrich success of tax cuts, welfare reform, a strong defense, and refused to continue to restrain spending and balance the budget. Gore was a dead duck. In fact, Florida would not have been close if Dan Rather doesn’t call the state for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle. The early call flipped other midwestern states to Gore as well.  Otherwise, in Florida Bush wins by 50,000 votes.

In 2016, Hillary also never even touched the Bill Clinton/Gingrich success but embraced a weak foreign policy and Obamacare tax and spend  type domestic policy including Obamacare. A very dead duck.

In 2024, an incoherent Harris shot herself dead when she wouldn’t change a thing in the Biden 4 years—including 19.6% increase in prices, weak foreign policy, and a wide open border with escalating crime. Completely dead duck.

The choices in both 2026 and 2028 may be between some very different nuclear policy options despite the current relatively strong Congressional bipartisan agreement on nuclear modernization and enhanced defense spending. The recent votes in the HASC may give some indication of future troubles. While almost by a 3 to 1 margin HASC members supported Sentinel, there were narrow party line votes on killing NNSA warhead production (26-29); eliminating space based missile defense (25-30) and stop funding theater nuclear forces (26-29).

It is clear the policy changes brought on by the elections of 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016 and most recently 2024 were huge. Just imagine, socialist Labor winning in 1979 in England, a liberation theologian in 1978 wins in the Vatican, and Carter is re-elected in 1980. Compared to Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. All over two years and two weeks, October 16, 1978 through November 4, 1980.

What could the US and its allies be facing if things change for the worse in 2026 and 2028?

If there re-emerges another diplomacy and trust-centric JCPOA type proliferation agenda, the US could very well see an Iranian nuclear breakout which would lead to a cascade of nuclear proliferation throughout the greater Middle East.

Adopting an amalgamation of limited deterrent forces, a No First Use strategy and significantly reducing reliance on extended nuclear forces, the US and its allies could easily be facing not one Ukraine type conflict but multiple aggressions—even simultaneous-- including over the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and the Baltics.

The nuclear bomb abolition lobby has been pushing to jettison nuclear deterrence itself but particularly to killing the Sentinel and Minuteman III ICBM force. Doing so would make it impossible to maintain a hedge force until well after 2045. The US would be stuck at the 2010 New START force which the 2023 Strategic Posture Commission unanimously concluded was not sufficient to secure deterrence. And have to increase nuclear expenditures by $200 billion.

Finally, the US might also keep only the most rudimentary national missile defense and retreat from any space based elements. This would give our enemies a free initial “punch” whether an accidental, unauthorized or deliberate attack. And cede the initiative to our enemies seeking to escalate a crisis or conflict.

On the other hand, the current administration has helped restore deterrence with the successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear forces, as Iran has now admitted that they have no access to their previous nuclear centrifuges and cannot restart the program at this time. And the administration has deftly reduced even stopped some deadly serious conflicts, such as the Congo-Rwanda conflict that to date has killed 5.4 million people and now has a cease fire in Gaza with the Israeli hostages freed.

NATO will now push to spend 5% of its GDP on defense which is a sea-change from the less than 2% average of some 8 years ago.

A significant and long term deal appears to be ready to be established with Congressional agreement to help Ukraine to stop Russian aggression and restore Ukraine sovereignty.

And Congress has passed and the administration signed into law a long term defense, conventional and nuclear modernization program, for the entire US nuclear Triad, missile defense, NNSA warhead production and enhancing our theater nuclear deterrent. In addition, funds for the enhancement of nuclear deterrent was also approved to take into account the “breathtaking” expansion of China’s nuclear forces and the US deficit in theater nuclear forces.

If by 2028 these accomplishments hold, the added deterrence accomplished may continue and add to success including a major expansion of the Abraham Accords, the restoration of Ukraine sovereignty and the end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But a change in the party that controls the House or Senate in 2026 risks breaking up the success of the past half-year, significant as that has been.

Trade deals bringing in literally $2 trillion in investment to the United States, including significant enhancements to US energy production, artificial intelligence technology, steel and auto production has a chance to so help the US economy that our twin annual and overall debt begin to move markedly in the right direction.

The President may technically be a “lame duck’ going into the 2028 Presidential election. But if in 2026 the American people like the direction of the country and wish to sustain the current accomplishments --closing the border, taken down the Iranian nuclear threat, moving toward peace in the Middle East, restoring needed defense spending, laying out a plan for national missile defense, getting NATO to adopt 5%, extending permanently the tax rate cuts, dumping unnecessary and deep state favored funding, boom energy production, end child transgender cruelty, keep women safe in sports, regain our nation’s physical health, mine some of the multiple trillions of minerals under our feet, restore trade balances and bringing back jobs to America—then the President will go into 2028 as a soaring American eagle, “Making America Great Again.”