
The Doomsday Clock is now just 89 seconds from midnight. Here's why
The Doomsday Clock is now just 89 seconds from midnight. Here's why
Show Caption
Hide Caption
What Is The 'Doomsday Clock' & How Does It Actually Work?
The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic timepiece showing how close the world is to ending. Atomic scientists reset the Doomsday Clock every January. Midnight marks the theoretical point of annihilation. Apocalyptic threats could arise from political tensions, weapons, technology, climate change or pandemic illness. The clock's hands are moved closer to or further away from midnight based on the scientists' reading of existential threats. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists updates the time annually based on information about catastrophic risks to the planet and humanity. At 90 seconds to midnight, the Doomsday Clock is the closest it has ever been to midnight. The clock was first set at 90 seconds to midnight in 2023 to reflect the danger posed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
unbranded - Newsworthy
Is it too early on a Tuesday to have an existential crisis? The Doomsday Clock doesn't believe so.
On Tuesday morning, the Doomsday Clock was set at 89 seconds to midnight, which is the closest it has ever been to midnight in the 78 years since it started running.
So what has set off the historic change? Essentially everything, according to the 2025 Doomsday Clock statement.
'In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course," the statement read. "Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight − the closest it has ever been to catastrophe. Our fervent hope is that leaders will recognize the world's existential predicament and take bold action to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and the potential misuse of biological science and a variety of emerging technologies."
Juan Manuel Santos, chair of The Elders, former President of Colombia, and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who participated in the 2025 Doomsday Clock announcement, said: 'The Doomsday Clock is moving at a moment of profound global instability and geopolitical tension. As the hands of the clock get ever closer to midnight, we make an impassioned plea to all leaders: now is the time to act together! The existential threats we face can only be addressed through bold leadership and partnership on a global scale. Cada segundo cuenta. Every second counts.'
Here's a look at what the Doomsday Clock actually tracks and why we're closer now than ever before.
What is the Doomsday Clock?
The Doomsday Clock is pretty much what the name implies: A morbid creation meant to warn the public about how close we are to destroying our world with the technology we create.
It was created in 1947, during a time when nuclear weapons presented the greatest threat to humanity, as the United States and the Soviet Union started a nuclear arms race.
While assured mutual destruction via nuclear weapons is never not a threat, the Doomsday Clock has since expanded to consider a multitude of other factors such as climate change, biological threats and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.
What happens when the Doomsday clock hits midnight?
When the Doomsday Clock strikes midnight, that's it. The lights are out, and no one is coming to turn them back on.
'When the clock is at midnight, that means there's been some sort of nuclear exchange or catastrophic climate change that's wiped out humanity,' Bulletin president and CEO Rachel Bronson told CNN.
When was the Doomsday Clock the closest to midnight?
Today. Right now, in fact. The Science and Security Board set the time to 89 seconds because 'despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies failed to do what is needed to change course.'
When was the Doomsday Clock farthest from midnight?
In 1991, with the end of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the first treaty to provide for deep cuts to the two countries' strategic nuclear weapons arsenals, prompting the Bulletin to set the clock hand to 17 minutes to midnight.
Where does the nuclear threat stand?
The original Doomsday Clock was all about the threat of nuclear annihilation. Little more than a week into President Donald Trump's second term in office, the nuclear outlook is still unclear.
The world's last remaining nuclear arms control pact – New START, which limits U.S. and Russian nuclear warhead deployments (and not stockpile size) – expires in early 2026.
The U.S. commander-in-chief told World Economic Forum attendees Thursday that he would 'like to see denuclearization' and said he previously discussed the idea with the leadership of Russia and China.
Yet the president's appointees, including new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, are less bullish about future arms reductions. The Pentagon head, in written responses to lawmakers' policy questions before his confirmation, said the country should only 'pursue arms control when it is in its interest to do so … Both China and Russian have rebuffed US efforts to engage in meaningful risk reduction talks since 2020.'
North Korea's nuclear arsenal, a topic of significant concern in the U.S. and abroad during Trump's first administration, poses a security and foreign relations challenge as well.
What can we do about the challenges the Doomsday Clock is warning us about?
So far, it seems that shrugging and saying, 'well, what can you do?' is the most common way to tackle many of these problems in our everyday lives. It's a fair enough stance to take − what can you do in the face of the threat of nuclear annihilation?
As with anything, baby steps.
The first thing anyone can do is arm themselves with knowledge about the problems and come to understand some of the solutions that have been put forth on the table. Raising the civic IQ around important topics like these helps us inch closer to finding real, tangible solutions.
The second part of that is spreading what you know to the people you know.
Lastly, whether it's through letters, emails, town halls or carrier pigeons, everyone has the power to write to their government representatives about these issues.
Contributors: Elizabeth Weise and Davis Winkie -- USA TODAY
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The Bulletin June 6, 2025
The rundown: Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev poked fun at the explosive war of words between U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, offering to mediate peace between the two political allies. Read his take on the Trump-Musk fallout. Why it matters: "We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment," Medvedev, a former president and prime minister of Russia, posted to X. The explosive feud between Trump and Musk marks a dramatic shift in their once-close relationship, as the latter has been one of the president's most prominent allies and donors. Musk and Trump began publicly feuding after the Tesla CEO ramped up his criticisms of the president's "Big, Beautiful Bill," which he described as a "disgusting abomination" and condemned for increasing the budget deficit. Meanwhile, Trump took to Truth Social to declare that he will terminate Musk's companies' governmental subsidies and contracts. Read more in-depth coverage: Could Elon Musk Be Deported By Donald Trump? What to Know TL/DR: His comments come at a time when Trump is trying to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine to end Moscow's ongoing invasion. What happens now? It's unclear how the Trump-Musk feud will continue to unfold in the coming days and weeks. The "One Big, Beautiful Bill Act" has passed the House and is now before the Senate. Musk's criticism could embolden fiscally cautious senators to push for changes. Deeper reading Russia's Medvedev Mocks Fight Between Donald Trump and Elon Musk


Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Russian-backed paramilitary group assumes security role in Mali after Wagner pullout
The Africa Corps, a Kremlin-backed paramilitary force, announced it will maintain its presence in Mali following the recent departure of the Wagner mercenary group. The Africa Corps announced it will maintain its presence in Mali after Wagner's withdrawal. Wagner operated in Mali for over three years, reclaiming territories from Islamist militants. The Africa Corps aims to shift toward training local forces and supplying equipment. The Russian-backed Africa Corps has announced it will remain in Mali, following Wagner's decision to end its three-year mission fighting Islamist militants and begin withdrawing its forces. Wagner's involvement in Mali began after the country's military junta, which took power through two coups in 2020 and 2021, expelled French and United Nations troops who had been combating Islamist insurgents for nearly a decade. Wagner posted on social media that it had successfully reclaimed all of Mali's regional centers from Islamist forces, pushing them out and killing their commanders. Transition from Wagner to Africa Corps Following Wagner's exit, the Africa Corps was created with support from the Russian Defence Ministry after Wagner's founder, Yevgeny Prigozhin, and commander Dmitry Utkin led a failed mutiny against Russian army leadership and fled to Belarus, confirmed it would continue Russia's paramilitary presence in Mali. On its Telegram channel, the Africa Corps stated that Wagner's departure 'does not signify a loss of Russian influence,' adding, 'Russia does not lose ground, but on the contrary, continues to support Bamako now at a more fundamental level,' referring to Mali's capital city. Experts, including Ulf Laessing, head of the Sahel program at Germany's Konrad Adenauer Foundation, suggest this shift may signal a change in Russia's engagement from direct combat toward training local forces and providing equipment. Ongoing security challenges Despite the transition, Mali continues to face serious security threats. A series of recent attacks by Islamist insurgents reportedly killed more than 100 Malian soldiers and mercenaries. One bombing near Bamako targeted both Malian and Russian forces, illustrating the volatile situation. The insurgent group Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), active in the Sahel region, claimed responsibility for several recent attacks, further heightening the ongoing threat. The Malian defense ministry has not commented on the transition between Wagner and Africa Corps forces. Still, Russia's continuing paramilitary presence highlights the complex security landscape and Mali's reliance on foreign support to combat insurgency.