The clock has now been set to 85 seconds before midnight, marking the closest position since its creation in 1947. Scientists behind the initiative say the shift reflects a convergence of escalating risks that humanity has failed to contain through diplomacy, cooperation and responsible governance.

The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, serves as a metaphorical measure of how close the world is to self-inflicted annihilation. Midnight represents global catastrophe, and each adjustment signals scientists’ assessment of existential threats facing humanity.

This year’s decision highlights aggressive behaviour by major nuclear powers, including the United States, Russia and China. Ongoing wars, nuclear brinkmanship and the erosion of arms control agreements have sharply increased the likelihood of miscalculation or escalation.

The conflict in Ukraine remains a central concern, with nuclear-armed Russia continuing its military campaign and repeatedly invoking nuclear capabilities. Scientists say the prolonged war has normalized the presence of nuclear threats in conventional conflicts.

Tensions in the Middle East have also contributed to the clock’s movement, as regional instability risks drawing in nuclear-armed states or triggering wider confrontation. Scientists warn that unresolved conflicts create fertile ground for unintended escalation.

Another major factor is the weakening of nuclear arms control frameworks. The impending expiration of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia has raised alarms among experts, as it is the last remaining agreement limiting deployed nuclear warheads between the two powers.

Scientists say the lack of progress on renewing or replacing arms control agreements has left the global nuclear order increasingly fragile. The possibility of a renewed era of nuclear weapons testing has further heightened concern.

Beyond nuclear dangers, artificial intelligence has emerged as a growing risk. Scientists warn that unregulated integration of AI into military systems could accelerate decision-making beyond human control, increasing the chance of accidental conflict.

AI’s role in spreading disinformation and deepening political polarization was also cited as a destabilizing force. Experts say false narratives can undermine democratic institutions, fuel conflict and weaken international cooperation.

Climate change continues to be a persistent and compounding threat. Scientists argue that worsening climate impacts strain global systems, intensify resource competition and increase the likelihood of political instability and conflict.

The clock’s adjustment also reflects frustration with what scientists describe as a global failure of leadership. They argue that nationalism, authoritarianism and zero-sum geopolitics are replacing cooperation at a time when shared solutions are urgently needed.

The Doomsday Clock has been moved closer to midnight three times in the past four years, underscoring a trend of worsening global conditions rather than improvement. Scientists say little progress has been made to reduce existential risks.

Experts point to rising military confrontations in Asia, including tensions around Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, as additional flashpoints with global implications.

The growing competition among major powers has undermined trust and reduced the willingness to engage in meaningful arms reduction or confidence-building measures.

Scientists also expressed concern over domestic attacks on science, media and academic institutions in several countries, warning that weakening truth-based systems erodes the ability to respond effectively to global threats.

Journalists and researchers involved in the announcement stressed that information warfare and disinformation pose a crisis of their own, distorting public understanding of risks and delaying action.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, including Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, to warn the public about nuclear dangers after World War Two.

Their message remains consistent decades later: humanity possesses the tools to destroy itself, but also the knowledge to prevent catastrophe if leaders choose cooperation over confrontation.

Scientists urge immediate action to reduce nuclear risks, regulate emerging technologies, address climate change and rebuild international trust before the clock moves even closer to midnight.

The controversy intensified after Trump said he would no longer think purely in terms of peace following the Nobel committee’s decision, warning that European countries would face tariffs unless Washington is allowed to secure control over the Arctic island. European leaders have reacted with alarm, viewing the comments as a sharp departure from diplomatic norms.

Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, has become central to a growing geopolitical standoff. Trump has argued that the island is strategically vital for US security due to its location and mineral resources, while European allies insist that sovereignty and international law must be respected.

The renewed threat of tariffs has unsettled European markets and revived fears of a return to a trade war similar to the turbulence seen in 2025. EU officials are now preparing possible countermeasures, including tariffs on billions of dollars worth of US imports, if Washington follows through on its warnings.

European leaders say the dispute risks undermining NATO at a time when the alliance is already under strain from conflicts in Ukraine and wider security challenges. Several governments have stressed that internal disagreements among allies should be resolved through dialogue rather than economic coercion.

Denmark has firmly rejected the idea that Greenland could be traded or pressured into changing its status. Danish officials have emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people, not imposed through threats of force or economic punishment.

Greenland’s own leadership has echoed this stance, saying the territory will not bow to pressure and remains committed to dialogue, respect, and international law. Protests have taken place in both Greenland and Denmark, with demonstrators calling for the island’s right to self determination.

Trump’s comments about the Nobel Peace Prize have added an unusual personal dimension to the crisis. The 2025 award was given to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a decision that reportedly angered the US president and has now been drawn into the Greenland debate.

In private messages later released, Trump questioned Denmark’s ability to protect Greenland and suggested the world would not be secure unless the United States had complete control of the island. These remarks have further inflamed tensions across Europe.

European Union leaders are expected to meet at an emergency summit to discuss their options, including the possible use of the bloc’s Anti Coercion Instrument. This tool could restrict US access to European markets, services, or investments if deployed.

At the same time, diplomatic efforts are continuing on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where several European leaders hope to engage directly with Trump. The goal is to prevent further escalation and avoid a damaging cycle of retaliation.

Analysts say the standoff reflects deeper shifts in global power politics, where strategic assets, trade leverage, and domestic political considerations are increasingly intertwined. Greenland’s situation has become a symbol of these broader tensions.

For Europe, the challenge lies in defending sovereignty and alliance principles without triggering a full scale trade confrontation. For the United States, securing strategic interests while maintaining credibility among allies remains a delicate balancing act.

As discussions continue, the outcome will likely shape not only the future of Greenland but also the direction of EU US relations and the stability of the transatlantic alliance in an increasingly uncertain world.