Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins on Nuclear Rearmament, AI Risk, and Why Public Service Still Matters

In an era defined by the erosion of arms control frameworks and the acceleration of technological change, the institutions that once governed nuclear stability are under increasing strain. Treaties that structured great-power competition for decades are expiring without replacement, geopolitical trust is fragmenting, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence are compressing decision timelines in ways policymakers are still struggling to understand. The question is no longer simply how arms control works—but whether it can adapt fast enough to remain relevant.
In this conversation, I speak with Bonnie Jenkins, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, about how the global nonproliferation system has evolved from the treaty-heavy optimism of the 1990s to today’s far more uncertain landscape. We explore the tension between norms and enforcement, the implications of a post-START world, and whether rising U.S.–China competition signals a new kind of arms race. Jenkins also offers a rare inside look at how policy is actually made within government—how leadership, institutional constraints, and geopolitical realities shape outcomes—and what skills truly translate from academic research into high-stakes diplomacy.
What emerges is a portrait of arms control not as a static set of agreements, but as a constantly adapting system—one that depends as much on political will and institutional capacity as it does on treaties themselves. At its core, this is a conversation about limits: the limits of agreements, of enforcement, and of our ability to manage risk in an increasingly complex world.

—Bonnie Jenkins is a former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and a leading expert on nonproliferation, international law, and global security policy. 

Opening
Ben Wolf (BW): You’ve worked across academia, civil society, and the State Department. At what point did arms control become not just a policy interest, but a career commitment?

Bonnie Jenkins (BJ): It really started when I was an intern in what was then the Presidential Management Internship Program, which later became the Presidential Management Fellowship. I was at the Pentagon in the International Law section.
While I was there, I went to a meeting on arms control and weapons of mass destruction. At that point, I hadn’t figured out what type of law I wanted to pursue—I had just finished both a law degree and a master’s degree. After that meeting, I thought: this is really interesting. I hadn’t focused on these issues before. And I decided then that I wanted to work in public international law, focusing on weapons of mass destruction and treaties.
So it was completely by accident. I hadn’t planned it at all.


Fragility and resilience in the nonproliferation system
BW: Was there a specific moment—an event, negotiation, or some sort of internal failure—that clarified for you how fragile or resilient the global nonproliferation system really is?

BJ: In the 1990s—what I think of as the last real decade of arms control negotiations—we were negotiating the Chemical Weapons Convention, finishing the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Treaties were still something we did. They were regularly ratified by the Senate.
So at the time, the system didn’t feel fragile. It felt like this was simply how the international community addressed weapons of mass destruction.
It also didn’t feel fragile because Russia—then the Soviet Union—and China were part of these processes. What’s changed over the past decade and a half geopolitically has altered that environment significantly. But at the time, this approach felt stable and routine.


Norms vs enforcement
BW: The nonproliferation regime is often described as a normative success but an enforcement challenge. Where do you think that tension is most visible today—and how did we get here compared to the 1990s environment you were describing?

BJ: I think that’s a fair way to describe it. The norm still exists: countries should not develop nuclear weapons.
During the Biden administration, one concept we emphasized was that of “responsible nuclear weapon states”—that if a country possesses nuclear weapons, it should not engage in saber-rattling or destabilizing behavior.
But there has always been a challenge tied to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for disarmament discussions. The United States and Russia—the Soviet Union before that—did engage in those discussions through the START treaties, reducing nuclear stockpiles by over 80% since the end of the Cold War.
The problem now is that we no longer have a START treaty. It ended recently, and it was the last remaining agreement with Russia that both limited and reduced nuclear arsenals. That mechanism is now gone.
At the same time, we have an upcoming Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference. These conferences are always difficult because of the range of issues involved. Iran will certainly be a major topic. There’s ongoing interest in a Middle East weapons-free zone, which will be even more salient now. And non-nuclear states consistently press nuclear states on disarmament timelines.
The last two Review Conferences failed to produce consensus documents—the most recent one in part because of Russia’s position on Ukraine, which wasn’t even directly about nuclear weapons. So the traditional challenges remain, but they’re compounded by new geopolitical tensions.


“A new Cold War?”
BW: I recently spoke with David Sanger of The New York Times, who argued that we may be entering a kind of new Cold War—given the end of the START treaty and China’s rapid nuclear buildup. Do you agree? Are we entering a new Cold War?

BJ: I would say we’re entering a period of new challenges. I’m hesitant to use the term “Cold War,” because that was a very specific historical period with its own leadership and dynamics.
That said, the possibility of an arms race is real—unless countries come together to negotiate constraints. China is expanding its nuclear arsenal, and without a START framework, there are no longer formal limitations in place. That creates space for increased nuclear and broader military competition among major powers.
So I wouldn’t call it a Cold War, but I understand why people draw that comparison. The absence of constraints is the key issue.


AI and escalation timelines
BW: As AI becomes more integrated into military systems, does it compress escalation timelines in ways current arms control frameworks aren’t prepared for?​

BJ: There are both positives and risks. New technologies can improve decision-making in certain contexts.
For example, if we had a new START treaty, advanced technologies could potentially enhance verification processes. We don’t currently have all the tools needed for more comprehensive inspections, so there’s interest in how emerging technologies can help.
But AI is also a new variable. We don’t yet fully understand how it will be used, particularly in military contexts. There is concern about how it could accelerate capabilities or decision-making.
There has been some movement toward norms—for instance, agreements among the U.S., U.K., France, and China to ensure a human remains in the loop for nuclear decision-making. There are also international discussions, such as the RE-AIM conferences hosted by the Netherlands and South Korea, focused on responsible AI use in the military.
Still, the pace of technological development is faster than arms control processes. Even if negotiations were underway, keeping up with that speed would be difficult. Not impossible—but definitely a challenge.


Inside government: adjusting to leadership, making policy within parameters
BW: Inside government, how often do personal views on arms control have to adjust to leadership priorities and institutional constraints?​

BJ: That’s always part of the job. I’ve been fortunate to serve during periods when there was strong interest in arms control and multilateral engagement.
Whether the focus is on reduction, elimination, or nonproliferation depends on the issue, the negotiations, and the positions of the countries involved. Every country operates within policy parameters set by leadership—not just one individual, but a broader set of decision-makers.
Within those parameters, there is room for discussion and influence. But the broader direction is shaped by leadership priorities. That’s why it’s much easier to work in environments where leadership supports arms control than in those where it doesn’t.


The biggest misconception about how arms control decisions get made
BW: What’s a major misconception people have about how arms control decisions get made?

BJ: One major misconception is how little people understand about how government works in general.
Many people don’t know the roles of different departments or agencies, or how government actions affect them directly. People naturally focus on what they encounter in daily life—healthcare, groceries—but that means a lot of government activity goes unnoticed.
In more specialized areas like international security and arms control, public awareness is even lower. These issues tend to surface only during moments of crisis, like Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
There’s also a tendency to treat “government” as a monolith, or to assume that anyone can step into these roles easily. But effective policymaking requires expertise, experience, and deep institutional knowledge.
I would like to see greater public understanding of the scope and importance of government work.


Skills that translate from scholarship into diplomacy
BW: You’ve bridged academic research and diplomacy. What skills translate best—and what should students focus on?

BJ: First, I would encourage anyone interested in government to pursue it. There’s some discouragement right now, but we still need people committed to public service.
It’s also important not to equate government with any particular set of individuals. Government is an institution; people come and go.
In terms of skills: respect for different viewpoints is essential. At the State Department especially, you’re constantly engaging with different cultures. No perspective is inherently superior to another.
Writing is also critical—there’s a great deal of it in government, and the ability to construct clear arguments matters.
Curiosity is equally important. You should be asking big questions: who are we as a country? What is the United States’ role in the world?
And finally, a commitment to public service. Whether in government, teaching, NGOs, or the military, the underlying goal is helping others. If that motivates you, there are many ways to pursue it.


Most rewarding part of her career
BW: Looking back, what has been the most rewarding part of your career?

BJ: My commitment to public service. That’s been the constant throughout my career.
When I graduated from law school, most of my peers went into private law firms. Only a small number of us chose government or other public service paths. But that decision opened up incredible opportunities—working across different levels of government, negotiating internationally, traveling, and contributing to major agreements.
I started in city government in New York, then moved to state government in Albany. That foundation eventually led to treaty negotiations, international travel with senior officials, and work on major commissions like the 9/11 Commission.
It’s all come from that initial commitment to public service. That’s what I value most about the path I chose.


Tradeoffs, regrets, and choosing seriously
BW: What’s a tradeoff you wish you had understood earlier in your career?​
​
BJ: I don’t think of it in terms of major tradeoffs.
For me, it’s about making thoughtful choices. Life presents multiple paths, and each one leads to a different outcome. When I graduated from law school, I had several options—all in public service. Choosing among them was difficult because each would have led to a very different life.
The key is to do the research, take the decision seriously, and choose based on what matters most to you. If you do that, you’re less likely to feel regret later.
I’ve always tried to pursue what I’m passionate about—and when something no longer aligns, I move on. That approach has helped me avoid feeling like I made major sacrifices.
Ultimately, it’s about living in a way where, looking back, you can say you made deliberate, thoughtful decisions. I want to reach that point without significant regrets.
And I’ll add: it’s important for younger generations to stay engaged. You’ll be taking on these responsibilities in the future, so your involvement matters now.