North Korea’s Nuclear Power: Can Trump Stop Kim Jong-un?
North Korea’s nuclear program has become one of the most intractable security challenges of the 21st century. Under Kim Jong-un, the regime has transformed what was once a limited and largely symbolic capability into a growing arsenal capable of threatening the United States homeland, as well as South Korea and Japan. With Donald Trump serving his second term in the White House, the question of whether American leadership can reverse or even meaningfully constrain this trajectory has returned to the center of foreign policy debate. The evidence so far suggests that complete denuclearization remains extremely unlikely, while limited management of the threat may still be possible.
As of early 2026, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that North Korea had assembled around 60 nuclear warheads, up from roughly 50 the previous year. The regime also possessed enough fissile material to potentially produce at least 90 warheads in total. Most of these are believed to be lower-yield fission weapons, though a small number may be thermonuclear. Production capacity continues to expand. In June 2026, Kim personally inspected a newly inaugurated uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon and ordered an “exponential” increase in weapons-grade material output. Independent analysis indicated that North Korea’s enrichment capacity had more than doubled in recent years, with new cascades of centrifuges significantly raising the annual production of highly enriched uranium.
The delivery systems that would carry these weapons have advanced in parallel. North Korea has fielded solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the Hwasong-18, which reduce launch preparation time and improve survivability. Short- and medium-range systems capable of striking South Korea and Japan are already operational in large numbers. In 2025 and 2026 the regime also tested hypersonic glide vehicles, long-range cruise missiles, and nuclear-capable systems designed for naval platforms. Kim has overseen the commissioning of new 5,000-ton destroyers intended to carry nuclear-armed cruise and ballistic missiles, signaling an ambition to create a more survivable, multi-domain nuclear force. U.S. officials have described these capabilities as presenting a “clear and present danger” of nuclear attack on the American homeland.
Kim’s strategic logic is straightforward and deeply rooted. Nuclear weapons are treated as the ultimate insurance policy for regime survival. The examples of Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine reinforced the view in Pyongyang that giving up nuclear capabilities invites external pressure or regime change. North Korean law and party doctrine now describe the nuclear status as permanent and irreversible. Kim has repeatedly stated that denuclearization is not a subject for negotiation. His sister, Kim Yo-jong, has publicly described the personal relationship between Kim and Trump as “not bad,” while simultaneously rejecting any talks premised on dismantling the arsenal.
Trump’s first-term record offers important lessons. The three meetings with Kim in 2018 and 2019—Singapore, Hanoi, and the Demilitarized Zone—produced a temporary freeze in long-range missile and nuclear testing and generated high-profile optics. The Singapore declaration committed both sides to the “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” yet contained no concrete timeline, verification measures, or sequencing of sanctions relief. The Hanoi summit collapsed when the United States insisted on a more comprehensive dismantlement package than North Korea was prepared to accept in exchange for substantial sanctions relief. After the talks stalled, North Korea resumed and accelerated its programs. By the end of Trump’s first term, the nuclear and missile threat was larger than when the diplomacy began.
Several structural factors make a decisive reversal difficult under any U.S. administration. First, the regime’s survival calculus places nuclear weapons above economic development or diplomatic normalization. Second, verification of a full inventory would require unprecedented access to hidden facilities, materials, and personnel—access North Korea has never granted. Third, China and Russia continue to provide critical economic and diplomatic cover. Beijing prioritizes stability on its border over denuclearization, while Moscow has deepened military and economic ties with Pyongyang in recent years. Fourth, North Korea’s technical progress—solid-fuel missiles, tactical nuclear options, and expanding enrichment capacity—has made the arsenal more resilient and harder to roll back.
In his second term, Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in resuming personal diplomacy with Kim. South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has advocated a phased approach that prioritizes a freeze on further nuclear and missile advances in the near term while keeping complete denuclearization as a longer-term goal. Trump has indicated openness to considering such sequencing. Official U.S. policy, however, continues to list complete denuclearization as the objective. Sanctions remain in place, though their effectiveness has been eroded by North Korea’s expanded trade with China and Russia and by the regime’s cyber and illicit revenue activities.
Realistic options for the Trump administration fall into several categories. Renewed summit diplomacy could seek limited, verifiable constraints—such as a testing freeze, a cap on fissile material production, or restrictions on further ICBM development—in exchange for carefully calibrated sanctions relief. Strengthening the U.S.–South Korea–Japan alliance through enhanced missile defense, joint exercises, and extended deterrence signaling can raise the costs of any North Korean use of nuclear weapons. Continued pressure on revenue streams, including cyber theft and overseas labor, can limit the resources available for further expansion. Military options involving strikes on nuclear facilities carry extreme escalation risks and remain politically and strategically unattractive.
The most probable outcome is not the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal but its management. A durable freeze on testing and production, combined with robust deterrence and alliance cohesion, would represent meaningful progress compared with the current trajectory of steady expansion. Complete denuclearization would require a fundamental change in Kim’s threat perception or a transformation of the regime itself—neither of which appears imminent. Trump’s personal rapport with Kim may open doors that formal diplomacy cannot, yet personal chemistry alone cannot overcome the deep structural incentives that drive North Korea’s nuclear program.
Kim Jong-un has already achieved what his predecessors sought for decades: a credible nuclear deterrent that reaches the United States. Rolling that capability back entirely is no longer a realistic near-term goal. Containing further growth, reducing the risk of miscalculation, and ensuring that any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for the regime remain the more attainable—and urgent—objectives. Whether Trump can deliver even that limited form of restraint will depend on sustained pressure, realistic expectations, and the willingness of China and Russia to cooperate. History suggests the path will be long, incremental, and incomplete.
About The Author
