The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds before midnight, moving the symbolic indicator four seconds closer to the theoretical point of global annihilation than a year ago. The Chicago-based nonprofit created the clock in 1947 to communicate how near humanity stands to existential catastrophe; its latest adjustment reflects a constellation of nuclear, technological and environmental risks, the organization said.
In announcing the change, the Bulletin focused on what it called aggressive posturing by major nuclear powers - in particular Russia, China and the United States - along with weakening arms control mechanisms, active combat operations taking place under the shadow of nuclear weapons, and new hazards related to artificial intelligence. Climate change also remained a continuing concern for the scientists.
Nuclear tensions and the erosion of arms control
The Bulletin highlighted several specific developments that informed its decision. The last remaining U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty, New START, is set to expire on February 5. In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that the two countries observe for another year the limits established under the treaty, which caps each side’s deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550; the Bulletin noted that the U.S. president has not formally responded to that proposal.
The organization said longstanding diplomatic frameworks are under stress or collapsing. It cited the continued war in Ukraine, ongoing U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, and border clashes between India and Pakistan as examples of military operations occurring amid nuclear risk. The Bulletin also pointed to tensions in East Asia, including on the Korean Peninsula and China’s threats toward Taiwan, and rising frictions in the Western Hemisphere since the U.S. president returned to office 12 months ago.
“In terms of nuclear risks, nothing in 2025 trended in the right direction,” said Alexandra Bell, the Bulletin’s president and CEO and a nuclear policy expert. She described diplomatic erosion, a renewed specter of explosive nuclear testing, growing proliferation concerns, and multiple military operations that took place under the shadow of nuclear weapons. “The risk of nuclear use is unsustainably and unacceptably high,” she said.
Bell pointed to a number of specific actions and developments. Russia has continued its large-scale invasion of Ukraine and has used weapons including the nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile; in December Russia released video it said showed deployment of that system in Belarus, a move the Bulletin said was intended to boost Russian strike capabilities across Europe.
The Bulletin also noted that in October the U.S. president ordered the U.S. military to restart the process for testing nuclear weapons after a pause of more than three decades. The scientists observed that no nuclear power other than North Korea - which last conducted an explosive test most recently in 2017 - has carried out such testing in more than a quarter century. The Bulletin quoted Bell as saying that China would stand to benefit most from a full-scale return to explosive testing, given its continuing expansion of nuclear forces.
On broader geopolitics, the Bulletin described shifts in U.S. policy and posture that it said have contributed to instability. It cited actions by the U.S. president, including what it characterized as attempts to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, threats to other Latin American countries, the deployment of U.S. forces to capture Venezuela’s leader, and comments about annexing Greenland, along with moves the Bulletin said imperiled transatlantic security cooperation. The Bulletin warned that an increasingly nationalistic, winner-takes-all great-power competition among Russia, China, the United States and others undermines the multilateral cooperation needed to reduce systemic risks.
Artificial intelligence and information risks
Alongside nuclear concerns, the Bulletin singled out artificial intelligence as a growing set of threats. The scientists expressed alarm about unregulated integration of AI into military systems and the potential for AI to be misused in the creation of biological threats. They also emphasized AI’s role in accelerating disinformation at scale.
“Of course, the Doomsday Clock is about global risks, and what we have seen is a global failure in leadership,” Bell told Reuters. “No matter the government, a shift towards neo-imperialism and an Orwellian approach to governance will only serve to push the clock toward midnight.”
Maria Ressa, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who has drawn attention to the role of social media in spreading disinformation, participated in the announcement. She characterized the current information environment as an “information Armageddon,” driven by technologies that spread falsehoods faster than facts and profit from social division.
Climate and the clock’s history
The Bulletin also noted continuing challenges posed by climate change as part of the broader set of dangers affecting global stability. The organization traces its origins to 1945 and to a group of scientists that included some prominent figures from the wartime atomic program; it set the Doomsday Clock in 1947 as a public symbol designed to warn about the proximity of existential threats.
The move to 85 seconds before midnight marks the third occasion in four years that the Bulletin has shifted the clock closer to catastrophe. The organization framed its decision as a response to a collection of interlocking risks - political, military, technological and environmental - that it said have intensified rather than eased.
Key takeaways
- The Doomsday Clock was set to 85 seconds before midnight, four seconds closer than last year.
- Drivers cited include aggressive behavior by nuclear-armed states, fraying arms control such as the looming expiration of New START, active conflicts under the shadow of nuclear arms, and emerging AI-related threats.
- The Bulletin warned of an information crisis fueled by AI-enabled disinformation and highlighted climate change as a continuing global risk.
Why it matters to markets and sectors
- Energy and utilities: Heightened geopolitical risk and potential disruptions related to armed conflict may affect fuel supply and power infrastructure planning.
- Defense and aerospace: Rising nuclear and strategic tensions could influence defense spending and procurement decisions.
- Technology and biotech: Concerns over the military use of AI and AI-facilitated biological risks underscore regulatory and compliance uncertainties for companies in these sectors.