Research Dossier

Nuclear and weapons policy reversals

The collapse of nuclear arms control and reversal of weapons prohibitions, including New START expiration, nuclear testing orders, and procurement of banned weapons.

Records
5
Last updated
March 26, 2026
Generated
April 8, 2026
Source
https://trumpswarcrimes.com

This dossier is generated from the public archive at https://trumpswarcrimes.com. Classifications are editorial assessments, not legal determinations. See the full methodology at https://trumpswarcrimes.com/about.

Table of Contents

  1. New START Treaty Expires: First Time Since 1970s With No Nuclear Arms Control February 5, 2026 · Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern
  2. Trump Orders Pentagon to Resume Nuclear Weapons Testing, Breaking 33-Year Moratorium October 30, 2025 · Serious Rights Violation
  3. Hegseth Reverses US Landmine Ban, Rescinds $5B+ Humanitarian Demining Program December 2, 2025 · Serious Rights Violation
  4. Pentagon Signs $210M+ Deal to Purchase Cluster Munitions From Israel February 6, 2026 · Serious Rights Violation
  5. Dismantlement of Pentagon Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Program February 28, 2025 · Serious Rights Violation
Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

New START Treaty Expires: First Time Since 1970s With No Nuclear Arms Control

Incident: February 5, 2026 · Updated: March 26, 2026

The expiration of the last US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty ends over five decades of binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. No replacement is under negotiation. The loss of verification mechanisms, data exchange, and warhead caps risks an unconstrained nuclear arms race at a time of peak geopolitical tension.

Key Facts

  • New START expired on February 5, 2026, ending the last legally binding limits on US and Russian nuclear arsenals — 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, 700 deployed delivery systems, and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers per side.
  • This marks the first time since the early 1970s that there are no binding nuclear arms control agreements between the two nations that together possess approximately 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.
  • The treaty's verification regime — including on-site inspections, data exchanges, and a bilateral consultative commission — has been lost, removing critical transparency mechanisms that prevent miscalculation.
  • Russia had proposed a one-year mutual extension of New START limits past expiration. The US did not formally respond, instead calling for a 'new, modernized treaty' without engaging in negotiations.
  • The UN Secretary-General warned of a 'grave moment' as the treaty expired, calling on both states to maintain restraint and pursue new negotiations.

Metadata

Victims
No direct casualties. The enabling harm is to global security — the removal of binding limits on approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads held by the US and Russia, the loss of verification mechanisms that prevent miscalculation, and the increased risk of an unconstrained nuclear arms race affecting all of humanity.
Actors
Both the United States and Russia bear responsibility for the treaty's lapse. Russia suspended compliance in 2023 and the US declined to respond to Russia's proposal to maintain limits, instead calling for a new treaty without engaging in negotiations.
International law
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Article VI Each party undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament; UN Charter Article 26 The Security Council shall formulate plans for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments; International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (1996) The threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international humanitarian law; states are obligated to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament; Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) Prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons
Legal issues
NPT Article VI (obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament), ICJ Advisory Opinion 1996 (obligation to conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament), UN Charter Article 26 (armaments regulation), Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Timeline

  1. February 21, 2023 — Russia suspends compliance with New START
    Russian President Vladimir Putin announces Russia will suspend its compliance with New START, halting on-site inspections and data exchanges with the United States following tensions over the war in Ukraine.
  2. September 25, 2025 — Putin proposes one-year mutual extension of limits
    Russian President Putin publicly proposes that the US and Russia mutually observe New START limits for one year after the treaty's scheduled expiration, maintaining the warhead caps and launcher limits informally.
  3. February 5, 2026 — New START expires with no successor
    The treaty formally expires. President Trump states the US will seek a 'new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future' but does not engage in negotiations. The US does not formally respond to Russia's proposal to maintain limits.
  4. February 5, 2026 — UN Secretary-General warns of 'grave moment'
    UN Secretary-General issues a statement warning that the expiration of New START represents a 'grave moment' for global security, calling on both states to exercise maximum restraint and pursue new arms control negotiations.

Analysis

What Happened

On February 5, 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) formally expired, ending the last legally binding nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia. No successor treaty has been negotiated or is currently under negotiation. For the first time since the early 1970s — over five decades — there are no binding limits on the strategic nuclear forces of the two nations that together possess approximately 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.

What Was Lost

New START, originally signed in 2010 and extended for five years in 2021, imposed the following limits on each side:

  • 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads
  • 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers
  • 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers

Beyond the numerical limits, the treaty established a comprehensive verification regime that included on-site inspections, regular data exchanges on force composition and deployments, notifications of changes, and a Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) for resolving compliance questions. These transparency mechanisms provided both sides with insights into the other's nuclear posture, reducing the risk of miscalculation and worst-case planning.

The Path to Expiration

Russia suspended compliance with New START in February 2023 following the escalation of tensions over Ukraine, halting inspections and data exchanges. In September 2025, Russian President Putin publicly proposed that both nations continue to observe New START limits for one year after the treaty's expiration. The United States did not formally respond to this proposal. Instead, President Trump posted on social media on February 5, 2026, that the US would seek a "new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future" — without initiating negotiations.

The expiration of New START implicates the nuclear disarmament obligations that both the United States and Russia have undertaken under international law:

NPT Article VI: Both the US and Russia are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which requires them "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." Allowing the last arms control treaty to lapse without pursuing a successor raises questions about compliance with this obligation.

ICJ Advisory Opinion (1996): The International Court of Justice unanimously concluded that "there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." Letting New START expire without engaged negotiations to replace it is arguably inconsistent with this obligation.

Enabling classification: While the treaty's expiration does not itself constitute a war crime, it removes the structural constraints that prevent nuclear escalation. It enables worst-case planning, unconstrained arms buildups, and increases the risk of nuclear conflict — making it an enabling condition for potential future catastrophic harm.

Why This Is Classified Critical

This incident receives a critical severity classification because:

  • Historic rupture: The first time in over 50 years that the world's two largest nuclear arsenals face no legally binding constraints. This is not merely a policy setback — it is the collapse of an entire framework of nuclear restraint.
  • Scale of risk: Approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads between the US and Russia are now unconstrained. The potential consequences of miscalculation or escalation are existential.
  • Loss of verification: The end of inspections, data exchanges, and the BCC removes critical transparency mechanisms that have prevented miscalculation for decades.
  • No negotiations underway: Neither side is engaged in negotiations for a successor treaty. The US called for a new treaty without initiating talks. Russia's proposal to maintain limits was ignored.
  • Compounding factors: Combined with Trump's October 2025 order to resume nuclear testing, the treaty's expiration creates a dual erosion of nuclear norms.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. NPT Article VI (Obligation to Negotiate Disarmament): Allowing the last arms control treaty to expire without pursuing a successor raises serious questions about good-faith compliance with NPT obligations.
  2. ICJ Advisory Opinion (Nuclear Disarmament Obligation): The unanimous ICJ conclusion that states must pursue and conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations creates a legal obligation that the treaty's lapse arguably violates.
  3. UN Charter Article 26 (Armaments Regulation): The Security Council's mandate to establish systems for regulating armaments is undermined when the foundational bilateral framework collapses.
  4. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: While neither the US nor Russia has signed the TPNW, it reflects the growing international consensus that nuclear weapons are inherently contrary to international humanitarian law — a consensus that the treaty's expiration moves further away from.

Sources (7)

  1. New START Expires As U.S. Urges 'Modernized' Treaty — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-03/news/new-start-expires-us-urges-modernized-treaty
  2. The End of New START: From Limits to Looming Risks — Nuclear Threat Initiative
    https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/the-end-of-new-start-from-limits-to-looming-risks/
  3. UN chief warns of 'grave moment' as final US-Russia nuclear arms treaty expires — UN News
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/02/1166892
  4. Nukes Without Limits? A New Era After the End of New START — Council on Foreign Relations
    https://www.cfr.org/articles/nukes-without-limits-a-new-era-after-the-end-of-new-start
  5. New START — Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
  6. A key nuclear weapons treaty is ending — CNN
    https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/04/world/new-start-treaty-expiration-nuclear-weapons-intl
  7. The US and Russia's nuclear weapons treaty is set to expire — Chatham House
    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-and-russias-nuclear-weapons-treaty-set-expire-heres-whats-stake

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/new-start-treaty-expiration

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

Trump Orders Pentagon to Resume Nuclear Weapons Testing, Breaking 33-Year Moratorium

Incident: October 30, 2025 · Updated: March 26, 2026

Trump directed the Pentagon to match other nations' nuclear testing programs, breaking a moratorium that has held since 1992 and threatening to collapse the global norm against nuclear testing that has been maintained for over three decades.

Key Facts

  • On October 30, 2025, Trump publicly directed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, stating the US should match 'other countries' nuclear testing programs' — apparently referencing Russia's publicized test of a nuclear delivery system.
  • The US has not conducted a live nuclear weapons test since 1992, when President George H.W. Bush imposed a unilateral testing moratorium. No country besides North Korea has tested nuclear weapons since the 1990s.
  • The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), signed by the US in 1996 but never ratified, prohibits all nuclear explosions. Resuming testing would violate the treaty's object and purpose under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
  • Arms control experts warn that US resumption of nuclear testing would trigger a cascade — providing cover for Russia, China, and other states to resume their own testing programs, collapsing the global testing moratorium.
  • The Nuclear Threat Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations, and CSIS all published analyses warning of severe consequences for global nuclear stability.

Metadata

Victims
No direct casualties from the order itself. The enabling harm threatens all of humanity — a resumption of nuclear testing would accelerate the nuclear arms race, increase proliferation risks, cause environmental contamination at test sites, and move the world closer to potential nuclear conflict.
Actors
President Donald Trump (issued the order), Pentagon leadership (directed to implement)
International law
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) Prohibits all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. The US signed but never ratified; resuming testing would violate the treaty's object and purpose; Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Article VI Obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament; International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (1996) States are obligated to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament; nuclear testing furthers the arms race in direct contradiction; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 18 Signatory states are obligated not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty they have signed, even if not ratified; Customary International Law The 33-year global moratorium on nuclear testing (maintained by all states except North Korea) has arguably crystallized into a norm of customary international law
Legal issues
CTBT (prohibition on nuclear explosions), NPT Article VI (obligation to negotiate disarmament), ICJ Advisory Opinion 1996 (obligation to conclude disarmament negotiations), Vienna Convention Article 18 (obligation not to defeat treaty object and purpose), customary international law (33-year testing moratorium)

Timeline

  1. October 2, 1992 — US nuclear testing moratorium established
    President George H.W. Bush signs the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment imposing a moratorium on US nuclear weapons testing. The last US nuclear test was conducted on September 23, 1992.
  2. September 24, 1996 — US signs the CTBT
    President Clinton signs the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which prohibits all nuclear explosions. The Senate refuses to ratify it in 1999, but the US continues to observe the moratorium.
  3. October 30, 2025 — Trump orders Pentagon to resume nuclear testing
    President Trump announces on social media that 'because of other countries' nuclear testing programs,' he wants the 'Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis.' Arms control experts express alarm at the prospect of breaking the 33-year moratorium.
  4. November 1, 2025 — NTI CEO condemns the announcement
    The Nuclear Threat Initiative issues a statement from CEO Ernest J. Moniz warning that resuming nuclear testing would undermine global stability and provide cover for other states to resume testing.
  5. December 1, 2025 — Arms Control Association publishes detailed analysis
    The Arms Control Association publishes comprehensive analyses of the legal, technical, and strategic implications of Trump's testing order, concluding it threatens to collapse the global nuclear testing moratorium.

Analysis

What Happened

On October 30, 2025, President Donald Trump publicly ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, announcing on social media that "because of other countries' nuclear testing programs," he wants the "Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis." The announcement appeared to be a response to Russia's recently publicized test of a nuclear delivery system.

This directive threatens to break a 33-year US moratorium on nuclear testing that has been in place since 1992, when President George H.W. Bush signed legislation imposing the halt. The last US nuclear weapons test was conducted on September 23, 1992, at the Nevada Test Site. No country other than North Korea has conducted a nuclear test since the 1990s.

The Global Testing Moratorium

The global norm against nuclear testing is one of the most successful arms control achievements in history. While the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has never entered into force due to non-ratification by key states including the United States, the de facto moratorium has held for over three decades. The United States signed the CTBT in 1996, creating a legal obligation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties not to defeat the treaty's object and purpose.

The moratorium has been maintained through voluntary restraint by all nuclear-armed states except North Korea. Arms control experts warn that if the United States — the world's preeminent military power — resumes testing, it would provide cover and justification for Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and potentially other states to resume their own testing programs, triggering a cascade that would collapse the global norm entirely.

Implementation Status

As of March 2026, it remains unclear what specific policy changes have resulted from Trump's order. CSIS analysis notes that the Nevada National Security Site would require significant preparation — potentially years — before a nuclear test could be conducted. However, the political signal sent by the order itself has already damaged the global testing norm.

CTBT obligations: While the US has not ratified the CTBT, it signed the treaty in 1996. Under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signatory states are obligated not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty they have signed. Resuming nuclear testing would directly violate this obligation.

NPT Article VI: Both the US and Russia are parties to the NPT, which requires pursuit of "effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race." Resuming nuclear testing moves in the opposite direction — accelerating the arms race rather than restraining it.

Customary international law: The 33-year moratorium, maintained by every nuclear-armed state except North Korea, may have crystallized into a norm of customary international law. Breaking it would violate this norm.

ICJ Advisory Opinion: The International Court of Justice's 1996 advisory opinion established the obligation to pursue and conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations. Resuming testing is antithetical to this obligation.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

  • Breaking a 33-year norm: The US nuclear testing moratorium is one of the longest-standing and most consequential arms control norms. Breaking it would have cascading global consequences.
  • Cascade risk: Arms control experts across the political spectrum warn that US testing would trigger testing by other states, collapsing the global moratorium entirely.
  • Existential stakes: Nuclear testing advances weapons development, accelerates the arms race, and moves the world closer to potential nuclear conflict.
  • Environmental harm: Nuclear testing causes radioactive contamination at test sites and surrounding areas, with health consequences lasting generations.
  • Combined with New START expiration: When paired with the February 2026 expiration of New START, the testing order represents a dual collapse of the nuclear restraint framework.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. CTBT (Nuclear Test Prohibition): Resuming testing would violate the object and purpose of a treaty the US has signed, constituting a breach under the Vienna Convention.
  2. NPT Article VI (Arms Race Cessation): Nuclear testing accelerates the arms race in direct contradiction of the NPT obligation to pursue its cessation.
  3. ICJ Advisory Opinion (Disarmament Obligation): Testing new nuclear weapons is fundamentally incompatible with the obligation to pursue and conclude disarmament negotiations.
  4. Vienna Convention Article 18 (Object and Purpose): As a CTBT signatory, the US must not defeat the treaty's core purpose — ending all nuclear explosions.
  5. Customary International Law: The three-decade moratorium has arguably become binding custom. Breaking it would violate this norm.

Sources (7)

  1. Trump says he wants to resume nuclear testing. Here's what that would mean — NPR
    https://www.npr.org/2025/10/30/nx-s1-5590818/trump-nuclear-testing
  2. Trump orders Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, citing rival nations' programs — CNBC
    https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/30/trump-instructs-us-to-resume-nuclear-weapons-testing-citing-rival-nations-programs.html
  3. Trump's Nuclear Test Rhetoric and Reality — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-12/focus/trumps-nuclear-test-rhetoric-and-reality
  4. The CTBT, the Global Nuclear Test Moratorium, and New US Threats to Break the Norm — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/policy-white-papers/2025-12/ctbt-global-nuclear-test-moratorium-and-new-us-threats-break-norm
  5. Will Trump's Nuclear Testing Order Prompt a Global Race? — Council on Foreign Relations
    https://www.cfr.org/articles/will-trumps-nuclear-testing-order-prompt-global-race
  6. Can the United States Immediately Return to Nuclear Testing? — CSIS
    https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-united-states-immediately-return-nuclear-testing
  7. Statement from NTI CEO on President Trump's Remarks on Nuclear Testing — Nuclear Threat Initiative
    https://www.nti.org/news/statement-from-nti-ceo-ernest-j-moniz-on-president-trumps-remarks-on-nuclear-testing/

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/nuclear-testing-resumption-order

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

Hegseth Reverses US Landmine Ban, Rescinds $5B+ Humanitarian Demining Program

Incident: December 2, 2025 · Updated: March 26, 2026

The Trump administration reversed decades of bipartisan progress toward eliminating antipersonnel landmines by authorizing their global use and simultaneously dismantling the US humanitarian demining program that had been the world's largest mine-clearing effort.

Key Facts

  • Defense Secretary Hegseth signed a memo on December 2, 2025, reversing the Biden-era policy that prohibited US use of antipersonnel landmines outside the Korean Peninsula, allowing combatant commanders to deploy landmines anywhere without geographic restriction.
  • The same memo rescinded the US Humanitarian Mine Program, a decades-long government initiative that had provided over $5 billion in assistance to more than 125 countries to find and destroy unexploded landmines since 1993.
  • The US was the world's largest global donor to mine-clearing actions in 2024. The rescission immediately halted funding to mine-clearing nonprofits, which were ordered to cease operations 'effective immediately.'
  • Civilians make up 90% of all recorded landmine casualties. Amnesty International called the reversal 'devastating,' warning it would put more civilians at increased risk and undermine global efforts to eliminate these weapons.
  • 164 nations have joined the Ottawa Treaty banning antipersonnel mines. The US reversal provides political cover for other non-signatory states and undermines the treaty regime.

Metadata

Victims
No direct casualties from the policy change itself. However, antipersonnel landmines killed thousands of civilians globally in 2024, with 90% of all casualties being civilians. The rescission of the humanitarian demining program directly threatens communities in 125+ countries where US-funded mine-clearing operations were active. The halt of funding to mine-clearing nonprofits means existing minefields will remain uncleared, putting civilian populations at continued risk.
Actors
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (signed the memo), President Donald Trump (rescinded the humanitarian demining program through executive authority)
International law
Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban Treaty) Prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines. 164 states parties. The US has never signed but had been progressively aligning its policy with the treaty's goals; International Humanitarian Law Prohibition on indiscriminate weapons — antipersonnel landmines cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians; International Humanitarian Law Principle of distinction — parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8(2)(b)(xx) War crime of employing weapons which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol II (Amended) Restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps, and other devices — requires self-destruction and self-deactivation mechanisms
Legal issues
Ottawa Treaty (prohibition on antipersonnel mines), IHL principles of distinction and prohibition on indiscriminate weapons, Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx) (weapons causing unnecessary suffering), CCW Amended Protocol II (mine use restrictions)

Timeline

  1. December 3, 1997 — Ottawa Treaty signed by 122 nations
    The Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (Ottawa Treaty) is signed in Ottawa, Canada, by 122 nations. The United States declines to sign, citing military requirements on the Korean Peninsula.
  2. September 23, 2014 — Obama restricts landmine use to Korean Peninsula
    The Obama administration announces a new policy restricting US use of antipersonnel landmines to the Korean Peninsula only, aligning US practice with the Ottawa Treaty everywhere except the DMZ.
  3. January 31, 2020 — Trump's first term reverses Obama policy
    During his first term, Trump reverses the Obama-era landmine restrictions, allowing the Pentagon to develop and use 'non-persistent' landmines with self-destruct mechanisms.
  4. June 21, 2022 — Biden reinstates restrictions
    President Biden reinstates the Obama-era policy prohibiting US use of antipersonnel landmines outside the Korean Peninsula.
  5. December 2, 2025 — Hegseth memo reverses ban and rescinds demining program
    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signs a memo reversing Biden's landmine restrictions, authorizing global deployment of antipersonnel mines. The same memo rescinds the US Humanitarian Mine Program, halting over $5 billion in mine-clearing assistance to 125+ countries.
  6. December 19, 2025 — Washington Post reports on the reversal
    The Washington Post publishes details of the previously unreported Hegseth memo, triggering condemnation from Amnesty International, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and members of Congress.
  7. December 23, 2025 — Amnesty International calls reversal 'devastating'
    Amnesty International issues a formal statement calling the policy reversal 'devastating,' warning it will put more civilians at risk and undermine decades of global efforts to eliminate landmines.

Analysis

What Happened

On December 2, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo that reversed decades of bipartisan progress toward eliminating antipersonnel landmines. The memo, first reported by the Washington Post on December 19, made two sweeping changes:

  1. Reversed the US landmine ban: The Biden-era policy prohibiting US use of antipersonnel landmines outside the Korean Peninsula was rescinded. Combatant commanders were given authority to deploy antipersonnel mines anywhere in the world, without geographic restriction, at their discretion.

  2. Rescinded the US Humanitarian Mine Program: The decades-old government initiative that had provided over $5 billion in assistance to more than 125 countries to find and destroy unexploded landmines since 1993 was terminated. Mine-clearing nonprofits funded by the program were ordered to cease operations "effective immediately."

The United States was the world's largest global donor to mine-clearing actions in 2024. The rescission of funding cuts off not only US government demining efforts but also the extensive network of nonprofits that depended on US funding to clear mines in post-conflict zones worldwide.

Hegseth's Justification

The memo described the policy as providing US warfighters with a "force multiplier," stating the US military is in "one of the most dangerous security environments in its history." Hegseth's memo authorized the use of what the Pentagon calls "non-persistent" mines — landmines equipped with self-destruct and self-deactivation mechanisms. However, these weapons are still banned under the Ottawa Treaty, and their self-destruct mechanisms have historically proven unreliable, leaving unexploded mines in the field that function as persistent threats to civilians.

The Inherent Problem With Landmines

Antipersonnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate weapons. They cannot distinguish between a soldier and a child. Once placed, they remain active for years or decades, long after conflicts end. According to the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, civilians made up 90% of all recorded landmine casualties in 2024. Children are disproportionately affected, as they are less likely to recognize minefields and more vulnerable to the injuries mines cause.

Ottawa Treaty: While the United States has never signed the Ottawa Treaty, US policy had been progressively aligning with the treaty's goals under administrations of both parties. The Obama administration restricted use to the Korean Peninsula in 2014. Biden reinstated those restrictions in 2022. The Hegseth reversal moves US policy in the opposite direction, away from the international consensus held by 164 nations.

IHL prohibition on indiscriminate weapons: International humanitarian law prohibits weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. Antipersonnel landmines are the paradigmatic indiscriminate weapon — they detonate when any person steps on them, regardless of whether that person is a soldier, a farmer, or a child.

Enabling classification: The policy reversal does not itself cause casualties, but it enables future harm by authorizing the deployment of weapons that are designed to kill indiscriminately and by dismantling the world's largest demining program. The combination of authorizing new mine use while halting mine clearance creates a multiplier effect on civilian risk.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

  • Reversal of decades of progress: The policy undoes bipartisan progress spanning five administrations toward eliminating a weapon that kills thousands of civilians annually.
  • Destruction of demining infrastructure: The rescission of the $5B+ humanitarian mine program — and the immediate halt of funding to nonprofits — dismantles the operational capacity to clear existing minefields worldwide.
  • Indiscriminate weapon: Landmines cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. 90% of victims are civilians.
  • Global norm erosion: The US reversal provides political cover for non-signatory states and undermines the Ottawa Treaty regime that 164 nations have joined.
  • Dual harm: Simultaneously authorizing new mine deployment while ending mine clearance creates compounding risks to civilian populations.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. Ottawa Treaty (Mine Ban): While the US is not a signatory, the reversal moves policy away from the international consensus and undermines the treaty regime.
  2. IHL Prohibition on Indiscriminate Weapons: Landmines are inherently indiscriminate — they cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians.
  3. IHL Principle of Distinction: Deploying weapons that cannot distinguish targets violates the fundamental obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
  4. Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx): Employing weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is a war crime. Landmines cause devastating injuries disproportionate to any military purpose.
  5. CCW Amended Protocol II: Even under the less restrictive CCW framework, mine use is subject to restrictions including self-destruction requirements and warnings to civilian populations.

Sources (6)

  1. Hegseth reverses land mine policy to allow use of controversial weapon — Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/19/hegseth-land-mines-policy-reversal/
  2. Reversal of U.S. Landmine Ban Endangers Civilians and Undermines Human Rights Globally — Amnesty International
    https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/reversal-of-u-s-landmine-ban-endangers-civilians-and-undermines-human-rights-globally/
  3. 'Devastating': Amnesty Rips Hegseth Memo Reversing Limits on Landmines — Common Dreams
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/amnesty-hegseth-landmines
  4. ICBL Condemns U.S. Policy Shift on Antipersonnel Landmines — International Campaign to Ban Landmines
    https://icblcmc.org/our-impact/international-campaign-to-ban-landmines-condemns-reported-u-s-policy-shift-on-antipersonnel-landmines
  5. Countries Leave Mine Ban Treaty — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-01/news/countries-leave-mine-ban-treaty
  6. Landmines: Action Needed to Reinforce Ban — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/01/landmines-action-needed-to-reinforce-ban

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/antipersonnel-landmines-policy-reversal

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

Pentagon Signs $210M+ Deal to Purchase Cluster Munitions From Israel

Incident: February 6, 2026 · Updated: March 26, 2026

The US contracted with an Israeli state-owned arms manufacturer for banned cluster munitions at industrial scale, reversing decades of declining reliance on these weapons and funding an Israeli weapons program while cluster munitions continue to kill and maim civilians worldwide.

Key Facts

  • On September 30, 2025, the Pentagon awarded an indefinite delivery/quantity contract with a ceiling value of $829.1 million to Tomer, an Israeli state-owned company, for the manufacture and production of the 155mm XM1208 cluster munition shell. The initial order was valued at $210 million.
  • The contract was awarded without public competition under a 'public interest' exception to federal contracting law, bypassing normal procurement safeguards.
  • This represents the largest known US arms purchase from Israel in at least 18 years of available federal records.
  • Cluster munitions are banned by 111 nations under the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions due to their indiscriminate nature — they scatter submunitions over wide areas, and unexploded submunitions kill and maim civilians for years after use.
  • Human Rights Watch called the plan 'a deadly regression,' warning it would put civilians at grave risk and further weaken global norms protecting civilians from banned weapons.

Metadata

Victims
No direct casualties from the procurement itself. Cluster munitions kill and maim civilians worldwide — both at the time of use (submunitions scatter over wide areas affecting anyone present) and for years afterward (unexploded submunitions function as de facto landmines). The production of new cluster munitions at industrial scale will enable future civilian casualties.
Actors
US Department of Defense (awarded the contract), Tomer (Israeli state-owned arms company manufacturing the munitions), Pentagon procurement officials (bypassed competitive bidding using 'public interest' exception)
International law
Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) Prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. 111 states parties. Neither the US nor Israel has signed; International Humanitarian Law Prohibition on indiscriminate weapons — cluster munitions scatter submunitions over wide areas, posing inherent risks to civilians; International Humanitarian Law Principle of distinction — the wide-area effect of cluster munitions makes distinction between military and civilian objects extremely difficult; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8(2)(b)(xx) War crime of employing weapons which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol V Obligations on explosive remnants of war — states must take precautions to minimize the risk to civilians from unexploded ordnance
Legal issues
Convention on Cluster Munitions (prohibition on cluster munitions), IHL principles of distinction and prohibition on indiscriminate weapons, Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx) (weapons causing unnecessary suffering), CCW Protocol V (explosive remnants of war)

Timeline

  1. May 30, 2008 — Convention on Cluster Munitions adopted
    The Convention on Cluster Munitions is adopted in Dublin, prohibiting the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. 111 nations ultimately ratify or accede. The United States and Israel decline to join.
  2. September 30, 2025 — Pentagon awards $829.1M ceiling contract to Tomer
    The Department of Defense awards an indefinite delivery/quantity contract with a ceiling value of $829.1 million to Tomer, an Israeli state-owned company, for the 155mm XM1208 High Explosive Advanced Submunition projectile — a cluster munition. The initial delivery order is valued at $210 million. The contract is awarded without public competition.
  3. February 6, 2026 — The Intercept reports on the contract
    The Intercept publishes reporting on the previously unreported contract, revealing it as the largest known US arms purchase from Israel. The deal draws immediate condemnation from human rights organizations.
  4. February 9, 2026 — HRW calls deal 'a deadly regression'
    Human Rights Watch publishes a statement calling the cluster munitions purchase 'a deadly regression' that further weakens global norms protecting civilians from widely banned weapons.
  5. February 10, 2026 — Congressional oversight push begins
    Rep. Sara Jacobs leads a congressional oversight push demanding answers from the Pentagon about why it purchased cluster munitions, whether it plans to continue doing so, and the anticipated humanitarian consequences.

Analysis

What Happened

On September 30, 2025, the US Department of Defense quietly awarded a contract to Tomer, an Israeli state-owned arms company, for the production of 155mm High Explosive Advanced Submunition (XM1208) projectiles — cluster munitions. The initial delivery order was valued at $210 million, with the indefinite delivery/quantity contract carrying a ceiling value of $829.1 million. The contract was first reported by The Intercept on February 6, 2026.

The deal represents the largest known US arms purchase from Israel in at least 18 years of available federal procurement records. It was awarded without public competition, using a "public interest" exception to bypass normal procurement rules.

What Are Cluster Munitions

Cluster munitions are weapons that open in mid-air and scatter smaller submunitions — often called bomblets — over a wide area. They pose two distinct threats to civilians:

  1. At the time of use: The wide-area effect means submunitions land across a broad zone, making it impossible to limit their impact to military targets. Anyone in the area — soldiers, farmers, children — is at equal risk.

  2. After the conflict: A significant percentage of submunitions fail to explode on impact, remaining in the soil as de facto landmines. These unexploded submunitions kill and maim civilians for years and decades after use, often detonating when disturbed by agricultural activity, children's play, or foot traffic.

For these reasons, 111 nations have banned cluster munitions under the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Neither the United States nor Israel has joined this treaty.

Reversal of Declining Use

The US had been drawing down its cluster munition stockpiles for years. The decision to contract for the industrial-scale production of new cluster munitions represents a reversal of that trend and a significant step backward from the international consensus against these weapons.

Convention on Cluster Munitions: While the US is not a party to the Convention, the production of new cluster munitions at industrial scale directly undermines the global norm established by the treaty's 111 states parties. The purchase sends a signal that the US is moving away from, rather than toward, the international consensus.

IHL prohibition on indiscriminate weapons: Cluster munitions scatter submunitions across wide areas, making it inherently difficult to limit their effects to military objectives. This wide-area effect raises serious questions about compliance with the IHL prohibition on indiscriminate weapons and the principle of distinction.

Probable war crime classification: The classification is based not on the procurement itself but on the near-certainty that these weapons, if used, will cause civilian casualties due to their inherently indiscriminate nature and the long-term hazard of unexploded submunitions. Producing them at scale signals intent to use them.

No-bid contract concerns: Bypassing competitive procurement using a "public interest" exception raises transparency and accountability questions. The lack of public disclosure until investigative reporting revealed the contract five months later suggests an effort to avoid scrutiny.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

  • Banned by 111 nations: Cluster munitions are banned by the majority of the world's nations due to their inherently indiscriminate nature.
  • Industrial-scale production: A ceiling value of $829.1 million indicates plans for sustained, large-scale production — not a one-time purchase.
  • Civilian harm trajectory: Every use of cluster munitions produces unexploded submunitions that function as de facto landmines, creating a permanent civilian hazard.
  • Norm erosion: The purchase undermines the Convention on Cluster Munitions and signals to other states that cluster munitions remain acceptable.
  • No-bid secrecy: The contract was awarded without competition and went unreported for five months, bypassing public accountability.
  • Funding Israeli weapons production: The deal directly funds an Israeli state-owned weapons manufacturer during a period of intense scrutiny of Israeli military conduct.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. Convention on Cluster Munitions: While the US is not a party, the production of banned weapons at scale undermines the global prohibition regime.
  2. IHL Prohibition on Indiscriminate Weapons: Cluster munitions scatter submunitions over wide areas, inherently posing risks to civilians.
  3. IHL Principle of Distinction: The wide-area effect of cluster munitions makes precise distinction between military and civilian objects extremely difficult.
  4. Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx): Weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering — unexploded submunitions function as hidden landmines for years.
  5. CCW Protocol V: Obligations regarding explosive remnants of war require precautions to minimize civilian risk from unexploded ordnance.

Sources (6)

  1. Pentagon Makes Largest Known Arms Purchase From Israel — For Banned Cluster Weapons — The Intercept
    https://theintercept.com/2026/02/06/pentagon-israel-cluster-munitions-weapons-sale/
  2. US: Cluster Munitions Plan a Deadly Regression — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/09/us-cluster-munitions-plan-a-deadly-regression
  3. Rep. Sara Jacobs Leads Oversight Push of DoD's $210 Million Cluster Munitions Purchase — U.S. Congress
    https://sarajacobs.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-sara-jacobs-leads-oversight-push-of-dods-210-million-purchase-of-cluster-munitions-from-israeli-government-backed-company
  4. Cluster Munitions at a Glance — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cluster-munitions-glance
  5. Convention on Cluster Munitions — Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
  6. Groups Urge Congress to Block Purchase of Israeli Cluster Bombs — Common Dreams
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-israel-cluster-bombs

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/cluster-munitions-purchase-israel

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Official executive action enabling Ongoing

Dismantlement of Pentagon Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Program

Incident: February 28, 2025 · Updated: March 25, 2026

The Pentagon's civilian casualty prevention infrastructure was gutted in early 2025, removing safeguards that existed specifically to prevent the kinds of civilian harm documented in the administration's subsequent military operations.

Key Facts

  • The CHMR program and its Civilian Protection Center of Excellence were tagged for elimination by February 2025.
  • Approximately 200 personnel assigned to civilian harm mitigation were affected.
  • The dismantlement occurred months before the administration launched military operations in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Iran.
  • The Minab school strike (175+ children killed) occurred in a conflict where civilian harm safeguards had been removed.
  • Defense Secretary Hegseth framed civilian protection as a 'woke' constraint on military 'lethality.'

Metadata

Victims
Civilians in conflict zones where U.S. forces operate without institutional civilian harm safeguards, including the 175+ children killed at Minab and families of the 95+ killed in Caribbean strikes
Actors
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump Administration
International law
Geneva Convention IV Obligation to take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects in military operations; Customary International Humanitarian Law Principles of distinction and proportionality -- obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to ensure attacks are proportionate; Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions Articles 51, 57 Protection of civilian population and precautionary measures in attack; Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(iv) War crime to launch an attack in the knowledge that it will cause incidental loss of civilian life clearly excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated; Arms Trade Treaty norms Obligation to assess risk of arms being used in violations of international humanitarian law
Legal issues
Geneva Convention IV, Additional Protocol I (Articles 51, 57), Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(iv), customary IHL principles of distinction and proportionality, DOD Instruction 3000.17

Timeline

  1. February 28, 2025 — Hegseth announces Pentagon program cuts
    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced an 8% reduction to Pentagon programs, specifically targeting 'non-lethal programs' including CHMR.
  2. March 14, 2025 — FDD publishes analysis advocating restructuring
    The Foundation for Defense of Democracies published an analysis advocating for 'evolving' the CHMR program to support 'precision lethality.'
  3. March 15, 2025 — War on the Rocks warns of consequences
    Military policy experts at War on the Rocks published a warning that dismantling CHMR would be 'a big mistake' with consequences for both civilian protection and US military credibility.
  4. April 15, 2025 — The Intercept reports on systematic gutting
    Investigative reporting revealed the scope of the dismantlement, including personnel reductions and elimination of the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.
  5. September 2, 2025 — Caribbean drug boat strikes begin
    The first in a series of lethal strikes on suspected drug boats began, killing at least 95 people by December 2025 with no civilian harm review mechanisms in place.
  6. January 3, 2026 — Venezuela military intervention launched
    Operation Absolute Resolve launched without the civilian harm infrastructure that would have assessed potential collateral damage.
  7. February 28, 2026 — Iran war begins; Minab school struck
    A Tomahawk cruise missile struck Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab, killing 175+ schoolchildren -- in a conflict where the CHMR program had been dismantled.
  8. March 25, 2026 — ProPublica documents timeline of dismantlement and consequences
    ProPublica reported that the civilian harm program was dismantled months before the Iran war, directly connecting the institutional gap to civilian casualties.

Analysis

What Happened

In February and March 2025, the Trump administration systematically dismantled the Pentagon's Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) program, including the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. The program, which had been formalized through a 2022 action plan and DOD Instruction 3000.17, employed approximately 200 personnel dedicated to reducing civilian casualties in U.S. military operations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framed civilian protection as a constraint on military "lethality," characterizing the CHMR program as a "woke" initiative that "ties the hands of combatant commanders." The program and its Center of Excellence were tagged for elimination as part of an announced 8% cut to Pentagon programs, with particular emphasis on cutting "non-lethal programs."

Origin and Purpose of CHMR

The CHMR program had its roots in the first Trump administration, when Secretary James Mattis ordered a review of civilian casualties in U.S. targeting operations during the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. That review documented how inadequate civilian harm processes had led to unnecessary civilian deaths that undermined both the moral standing and the strategic effectiveness of U.S. military operations. The Biden administration formalized the resulting recommendations into a comprehensive action plan and Defense Department instruction.

The program's approximately 30 personnel at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence near the Pentagon, plus roughly 170 more across combatant commands, were responsible for:

  • Pre-strike civilian harm assessments
  • Post-strike civilian casualty investigations
  • Lessons-learned integration into targeting processes
  • Training combatant commands on civilian protection obligations under IHL
  • Tracking and reporting civilian casualties to Congress and the public

The Consequences

The dismantlement occurred months before the administration launched three separate military campaigns:

Caribbean Drug Boat Strikes (September 2025 onward): At least 26 strikes killing at least 95 people, with no published evidence that the victims were carrying drugs or any identification of the dead. The "double tap" strike of September 2 -- killing shipwrecked survivors -- occurred without the civilian harm review infrastructure that would have flagged this as a potential war crime.

Venezuela Military Intervention (January 2026): Operation Absolute Resolve, including bombing of infrastructure across northern Venezuela, was conducted without the civilian harm assessment processes that the CHMR program had been designed to provide.

Iran War (February 2026 onward): A Tomahawk cruise missile struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Minab, killing 175+ schoolchildren. As ProPublica documented, the civilian harm program that might have prevented this strike -- or at minimum triggered an immediate accountability process -- had been dismantled months earlier.

International Humanitarian Law Obligations

The obligation to minimize civilian casualties is not optional under international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and customary IHL require parties to armed conflict to:

  • Distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects (principle of distinction)
  • Ensure proportionality -- attacks must not cause civilian harm clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated
  • Take precautionary measures -- do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives, choose means and methods that minimize civilian harm, and cancel or suspend attacks if civilian harm would be excessive

The Rome Statute (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)) classifies as a war crime the intentional launching of an attack "in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians...which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated."

Dismantling the institutional infrastructure designed to fulfill these obligations does not relieve the obligation itself. It does, however, make violations more likely and accountability less achievable.

Why This Entry Is Classified as an Enabling Condition

The deliberate removal of civilian harm safeguards before launching multiple military campaigns establishes an enabling condition for war crimes. The CHMR program existed specifically to prevent the kinds of incidents that subsequently occurred. Its elimination was not incidental -- it was a policy choice to prioritize "lethality" over civilian protection, framed as removing constraints on military action.

In the context of ICC relevance, the deliberate dismantlement of civilian protection mechanisms may be relevant to establishing the mental element of war crimes charges. If civilian deaths result from operations conducted without the safeguards that were specifically designed to prevent them, and those safeguards were deliberately removed, the question of whether the resulting civilian harm was "known" or foreseeable becomes more straightforward.

Sources (7)

  1. Pete Hegseth Is Gutting Pentagon Programs That Reduce Civilian Casualties — The Intercept
    https://theintercept.com/2025/04/15/pete-hegseth-pentagon-civilian-casualties-harm/
  2. The Pentagon is About to Make a Big Mistake on Civilian Harm Mitigation — War on the Rocks
    https://warontherocks.com/2025/03/the-pentagon-is-about-to-make-a-big-mistake-on-civilian-harm-mitigation/
  3. The U.S. Built a Blueprint to Avoid Civilian War Casualties. Trump Officials Scrapped It. — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-defense-department-iran-hegseth-civilian-casualties
  4. Pentagon's Civilian Harm Program Was Dismantled Months Before Iran War Began — EIR News
    https://eir.news/2026/03/news/pentagons-civilian-harm-program-was-dismantled-months-before-iran-war-began/
  5. DOD Instruction 3000.17: Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response — Department of Defense
    https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/300017p.pdf
  6. Tracking Implementation of the CHMR Action Plan — Center for Civilians in Conflict
    https://civiliansinconflict.org/tracking-implementation-of-the-civilian-harm-mitigation-and-response-action-plan-chmr-ap/
  7. President Trump's First 100 Days: Attacks on Human Rights — Amnesty International
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/president-trumps-first-100-days-attacks-on-human-rights/

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/dismantlement-civilian-harm-mitigation

About This Dossier

Generated from the public archive at https://trumpswarcrimes.com. This archive documents allegations, not adjudicated findings. No person named has been convicted by any tribunal. Classifications are editorial assessments informed by legal analysis. See the full methodology at https://trumpswarcrimes.com/about.

Data exports: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/archive.json · https://trumpswarcrimes.com/archive.csv