Jessica Gregory
On 27 January 2026, the Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight than it ever had before. With only 85 seconds until the stroke of midnight (down from 89 seconds last year), what does this mean for humanity?
The clock was designed in 1947 by artist Martyl Langsdorf in response to the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union, in order to depict how far we are from a world-ending catastrophe. At the time, in the aftermath of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, it was seven minutes until midnight. Now it’s only 85 seconds.
So, what brought us to this point? The Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, who decide the position of the hands on the clock, broke down their decision into four key aspects: nuclear risk, climate change, biological threats, and disruptive technologies. As such, this article will examine each of those aspects individually.
Aspect #1: Nuclear Risk
When considering the risk of nuclear technologies, the year was off to a good start, with President Donald Trump announcing that he was “very close to having a deal” with Russia and China over denuclearisation. However, we have since experienced a global downward trend, following the testing of nuclear-capable weapons by Russia, the conflict between India and Pakistan, and attacks launched by the US and Israel on Iranian nuclear sites. In addition, North Korea has begun to increase their use of nuclear weaponry, such as through their development of a nuclear submarine.
Possibly most distressing of all, though, is that the New START Treaty expired at the beginning of February. This treaty was originally signed in 1991 between the Soviet Union and the US, and was later renewed in 2010 with Russia (the successor of the Soviet Union). The expiration of the treaty fundamentally means that there is now a lack of control over nuclear arms between the two major global players – something which initially helped bring an end to the Cold War. In the context of the growing usage of nuclear weapons, this is a dangerous time for the treaty to be expiring, and it raises fears of a new arms race commencing.
Aspect #2: Climate Change
In terms of climate change, 2024 and 2025 saw record-breaking statistics in areas such as sea level, temperature, and atmospheric carbon-dioxide. More than 60,000 people died from heat-related deaths due to summer heatwaves in Europe, and more than 350,000 were displaced due to floods in the Congo.
Trump’s Administration also is not doing the climate any favours. The administration’s agenda includes discontinuing efforts to tackle global warming, such as repealing targets, policies, and eradicating funding. The bulletin described this as the “most aggressive” climate policy rollback that has ever been analysed by the Climate Action Tracker (a scientific project that compares government climate change actions against the Paris agreement).
However, there are positives. Coal was surpassed by renewables in the global electricity mix for the first half of 2025. Furthermore, the 2025 UN climate summit focused on creating a “just transition” away from fossil fuels in a way that supports families and communities. This is clear through the Tropical Forests Forever Fund, which was discussed at the summit, as it has now raised $5.5 billion, with at least 20% of resources supporting local communities and Indigenous Peoples.
Aspect #3: Biological Threats
When considering biological threats, the bulletin broke it down into several sections – all of which show that people everywhere continue to be at greater threat (although its emphasis is on Americans).
Studies came to the same conclusion around mirror life, a hypothetical form of synthetic organisms designed to resemble bacteria but created with mirror images of the natural building blocks found in DNA, RNA and proteins: it presents many risks, including the possibility that it may be a deadly pathogen, which immune systems have not evolved to fight. As such the use of mirror life should be avoided unless there is a guarantee that it would not induce catastrophic consequences. Additionally, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential for positive outcomes in this field, but also equally for harmful ones. According to the bulletin, developments meant that new genome models can be designed to create functional viruses, alongside useful proteins. However, harmful proteins can equally be created. Due to a general lack of incentive to introduce safety measures (especially under current US leadership, according to the bulletin), this new technology can easily be misused, once again bringing us closer to doomsday.
Moreover, there has recently been a lack of any meaningful measures to limit the development of biological weapons. In fact, the US withdrew from the matter altogether, allowing Russia to violate international law by using banned chemicals in Ukraine, and turning a blind eye to China’s lack of transparency on the matter. This ultimately makes it even more likely that biological weapons are being developed.
To conclude biological threats, the US has cut major funding towards public health infrastructure and preparedness for a pandemic. A reduction in healthcare workers both at local and national levels, and other cuts resulting in a further lack of “situational awareness”, have combined to breed mistrust in science, vaccines, and public health authorities. As the bulletin explained, none of this is easily reversible. It cannot be forgotten that this is also set against a backdrop of increased threats of disease such as avian flu. It is widely believed that the US’s ability to respond to a health threat has severely decreased in the past year, which concludes that biological threats remain namely that: threatening.
Aspect #4: Disruptive Technologies
Finally, the use of disruptive technologies – or in other words, AI. There have been positive developments in the usage of AI, such as with increasingly accurate predictions about the structure and interactions of proteins, ions and more. However, there is also a cause for widespread concern. As already mentioned, some researchers in this area worry that AI will be used to design pathogens. With its ability to create viruses, there are fears of threats to biosecurity or the creation of another pandemic. But outside the field of medicine, AI is being used in areas of defence, where it is given tasks such as making decisions over nuclear weapons. It’s been made explicit that a human would always be part of a final decision, but the bulletin argues that being too dependent on “black-box systems” could pose a threat.
Alarmingly, to push through the use of AI, the US government has repealed a previous order regarding safety around AI usage. Whilst the European Union did introduce its own AI act last year, the US is placing pressure to postpone or minimise the regulations of this act. This serves to further highlight how the safety of humanity is being disregarded in favour of AI. The bulletin also warned about issues surrounding deepfakes, and later explained that with a president who already spreads misinformation, AI is all the more dangerous.
Outside of AI, we cannot forget about Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense system, a project developed to defend the US against ballistic missiles. This draws on ideas from Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. The bulletin argues that this defence won’t be nearly as effective as is desired, and instead will aggravate geopolitical opponents and increase the threat of a nuclear arms race. We can already see this evolving, with not only the US, but also Russia and China considering placing nuclear weapons in space. Coupled with the expiration of the New START Treaty, this signals doom.
Overall, the situation is dire, with a major emphasis placed by the bulletin on Trump’s aggressive leadership. Whilst there has been progress in some areas, it is clear that warnings from the bulletin from last year were largely ignored, and that has brought us four seconds closer to doomsday. Closer than we’ve ever been before. There are ways to undo the damage that has been done, but the question is whether leaders will respond to those challenges. Is this the brink or just the beginning?