The Doomsday Clock just moved closer to midnight again. On January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set it to 85 seconds to midnight. The Clock is not a timer counting down to a scheduled disaster. It is a hard-to-ignore signal about human-made danger stacking up faster than leaders are reducing it. The Bulletin created the Clock in 1947 to turn nuclear-age risk into a simple image the public could grasp. Over time, the questions behind the hands expanded beyond weapons alone. The Bulletin says it began factoring climate catastrophe into its annual deliberations in 2007. People often treat the number like a prophecy, yet the Bulletin treats it like a warning light. Alexandra Bell, the Bulletin’s president and CEO, put it bluntly, stating, “The Doomsday Clock is really a metaphor for the amount of danger that we’re in. But it’s also a call to action.”
How the Doomsday Clock is set, and what the number can and cannot do
The Doomsday Clock is set by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board. The board consults the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes Nobel laureates. The decision is not a single model output. It is a judgment by experts who track man-made risks that can scale quickly. The Bulletin publishes a written rationale each year, so readers can see the board’s logic. It also describes the Clock as an indicator of vulnerability to catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.
The number also has limits readers should keep in mind. It does not predict an event in 2026 or any other year. It does not assign a probability to nuclear war or a climate threshold. It compresses multiple domains into one signal, so it trades precision for clarity. The Bulletin’s timeline shows the hands moving away from midnight when conditions improved. In 1991, it moved to 17 minutes, after deep cuts and a reduced hair-trigger alert. The Bulletin summed up that moment with a line: “The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of national security has been stripped away.”
Why it moved from 89 seconds to 85 seconds in 2026
In January 2025, the Bulletin set the Clock at 89 seconds to midnight. One year later, it moved the hands forward by 4 seconds. The shift looks small, yet it signals a worsening direction. The Bulletin argues that hazards intensified while international cooperation weakened. In its press release, the Bulletin cites New START’s looming expiration and record climate trends. It also cites AI risks and biosecurity concerns.
Bell summed up the core claim in a short quote, noting, “Catastrophic risks are on the rise, cooperation is on the decline, and we are running out of time.” The 2026 statement adds that “hard-won global understandings are collapsing” and blames a “failure of leadership.” The board is pointing at behavior, not destiny. Treaties decay when leaders stop sustaining them. Scientific capacity erodes when leaders cut institutions. Public trust collapses when leaders exploit division.
Nuclear danger stays central because escalation can happen fast
Nuclear weapons remain the fastest route to mass death. The Bulletin says strategic competition shows signs of a “full-blown arms race,” tied to modernization and expansion. It also describes conflicts in 2025 that unfolded under nuclear shadow, with escalation risk always present. Such conditions raise risk through misreading and time pressure. The Bulletin also warns about an “almost complete absence of communication on strategic stability” among nuclear adversaries. That silence raises the chance of miscalculation.
Nuclear risk also connects to physical safety at nuclear sites. In 2025, the IAEA stated that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences.” The humanitarian end state remains beyond any realistic response plan. The International Committee of the Red Cross states, “no State or organization could deal with the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear bomb.” Scale reinforces that warning. SIPRI estimated that about 12,241 nuclear weapons existed worldwide in January 2025. SIPRI estimated 9,614 were in military stockpiles for potential use.
Arms control and verification reduce surprise, and the framework is fraying
Arms control is a tool for predictability. It limits forces and creates shared definitions that reduce misreading. It also builds routines that keep officials talking during political storms. The Bulletin warns that New START is “set to expire.” New START is the last major bilateral treaty constraining US and Russian strategic forces. US public documentation summarizes the caps. A January 2026 Congressional Research Service product lists 700 deployed launchers, 1,550 warheads on deployed launchers, and 800 deployed and nondeployed launchers.
Verification is the practical core of any limit. It provides data exchanges and on-site access that reduce surprises. When the United States announced the 2021 extension, the State Department said: “Extending the New START Treaty ensures we have verifiable limits on Russian ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers until February 5, 2026.” The State Department also explains that New START’s verification regime enables monitoring and increases insight into Russia’s posture. When verification fades, suspicion grows. Suspicion drives worst-case planning. Worst-case planning feeds a new arms race dynamic.
Climate disruption raises instability, and the physical signal keeps rising
The Doomsday Clock includes climate because climate stress can amplify other risks. Extremes of heat and rainfall can strain food systems and budgets. They can also weaken state capacity, which supports health response and security. The Bulletin reports record-breaking climate trends in 2024 and 2025. It notes that atmospheric carbon dioxide reached “152 percent of 1750 levels,” citing the World Meteorological Organization. The Bulletin also describes record sea surface temperatures, glacier losses, and rising sea levels. It describes an energized water cycle, with drought and flood swings across regions.
The scientific baseline is clear, and it comes from a global assessment process. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states: “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming.” The IPCC reports that the global surface temperature reached 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. The World Meteorological Organization also reported that CO2 rose by 3.5 ppm from 2023 to 2024. That was the largest increase since modern measurements started in 1957. Those numbers describe a physical trend that policy must confront.
Biological threats now include lab-made possibilities and weakened readiness
Biosecurity risk includes natural outbreaks and deliberate or accidental releases. The Bulletin says the 2026 outlook centers on “four major concerns,” including laboratory synthesis of self-replicating “mirror life.” It also highlights AI tools that can aid in the design of new biological threats. The board points to offensive programs in a world with weaker norms and to degraded public health capacity. It also warns about “loss of trust in public health authorities and science.” Taken together, those factors increase the chance of an outbreak that outruns response.
Mirror life risk can sound abstract, yet it ties to basic biology. The Bulletin explains that molecules can exist in mirror-image configurations, like left and right hands. Most life uses the same “handedness,” which lets enzymes and receptors fit like gloves. A self-replicating system with opposite chirality could evade normal biological controls, because it may not interact with existing organisms as expected. Public health readiness remains the other side of the equation. In 2025, the WHO wrote that infectious diseases “do not respect borders.” The same WHO update notes the International Health Regulations guide 196 States Parties.
AI and other disruptive technologies can amplify crisis risk and erode shared reality
AI appears in the Clock because it interacts with other risks and can accelerate them. The Bulletin says large language models raise “lingering concerns about their accuracy and tendency to hallucinate.” A hallucinated output can mislead a user who is rushed or stressed. That risk grows when AI becomes embedded in critical workflows. The Bulletin describes increasing defense use of AI across military programs, including decision-support contexts. It warns that heavy dependence on black-box systems can create danger, even with a human in the loop.
AI also accelerates information disorder, which weakens crisis response. At the 2026 announcement, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa warned that, “Without facts, there is no truth. Without truth, there is no trust.” Trust supports compliance with health guidance and acceptance of verified information during emergencies. It also supports diplomacy, because negotiators need a shared baseline. The Bulletin’s press release calls for creating international guidelines on the use of AI. Without guardrails, rapid deployment can outpace safety evaluation and accountability.
Leadership and cooperation decide whether risks compound or shrink
The Bulletin’s statement focuses on leadership because leadership sets guardrails. Leaders choose inspections or secrecy. Leaders choose hotlines or silence. Leaders choose science funding or cuts. Those choices shape risk long before any single crisis. The Bulletin says “Our current trajectory is unsustainable,” and it calls on leaders to find a path away from the brink. It links danger to weakened cooperation across major powers and collapsing understandings. At the 2026 announcement, Science and Security Board chair Daniel Holz put the cooperation point plainly, stating, “Our greatest challenges require international trust and cooperation.”
International forums still exist, and 2026 includes scheduled moments for diplomacy. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs notes that the 2026 NPT Review Conference runs from April 27 to May 22, 2026. The UN also describes the NPT as a landmark treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and advance disarmament goals. Review conferences can reinforce norms, even when politics are bitter. They expose where implementation is failing and where transparency has degraded. They also create pressure for verification and risk-reduction channels.
How the Clock can move back, and what practical steps can lower the risk
Moving the Clock back requires targeted actions and sustained follow-through. On nuclear risk, the Bulletin calls for the United States and Russia to “adhere to the central limits of New START,” conduct a data exchange, and begin negotiations on next steps. It also calls for dialogues among nuclear adversaries on doctrines and future plans, with crisis channels in place. Those actions reduce surprise and reduce pressure for rapid escalation. They also build habits of communication that can hold during crises.
On climate, the Bulletin argues for emissions cuts from fossil fuel burning and wider deployment of mature clean energy, backed by science-based policy and data sharing. On biosecurity, it calls for partnerships across health and security communities, with the capacity to respond to biological events. On AI, it calls for international guidelines and safeguards for critical uses. Public action links these goals because leaders respond to incentives. The Bulletin closes its 2026 statement with a blunt instruction: “Citizens must insist they do so.”
Conclusion
The Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight is not a forecast. It is a public warning about a global, man-made danger. The Bulletin set the time on January 27, 2026, and called it the closest ever. The message is that risk is rising while cooperation is declining. The Bulletin links nuclear competition, climate disruption, biological threats, and AI misuse. These dangers interact, so a crisis in one area can spill into others. When treaties weaken, inspectors lose access, and suspicion grows. When leaders threaten nuclear use, crisis managers have less room. When climate extremes intensify, disasters strain budgets and governance. When labs and AI tools advance, safety rules must keep pace. The number also implies a route back. The Clock has moved away from midnight when leaders reduced threats and verified limits.
The 2026 statement ends with a direct demand: “Citizens must insist they do so.” The point is pressure, not panic. The public can reward leaders who restore arms control and reopen strategic talks. Voters can also push for faster emissions cuts and tougher resilience planning. Communities can support routine vaccination and local outbreak readiness. Individuals can slow AI-driven falsehoods by checking sources before sharing. Professional groups can demand safeguards for high-risk research and military AI. None of these steps requires perfect unity. They require steady work, transparent goals, and accountability. The Clock’s hands will not change reality on their own. Yet the policies behind the numbers can reduce danger, year by year. Time can move back if choices change.
A.I. Disclaimer: This article was created with AI assistance and edited by a human for accuracy and clarity.
Read More: Could your EV be doing more harm to the environment than helping it?