By Julia Cooper, Policy Intern, Fall 2025
In Kathryn Bigelow’s nuclear thriller A House of Dynamite, allusions to President Dwight Eisenhower are present throughout. Portraited just over the Secretary of Defense’s shoulder in the film, Eisenhower’s watchful gaze serves as a reminder that many present-day challenges in nuclear policy have been around since the 1950s — and that throughout his presidency, he brought light to many of these issues in ways that remain relevant today. There are several lessons that we can take from President Eisenhower into forging non-proliferation today: that international cooperation is critical to successful non-proliferation, how the military industrial complex fuels the nuclear arms race and the importance of nuclear vigilance.
In his 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech to the United Nations, Eisenhower emphasized the importance of global cooperation in working toward non-proliferation, saying “this subject is global, not merely national, in character,” and that it is “a danger shared by all — and equally.” This warning of a global danger still rings true more than 70 years later, with an estimated 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world. Eisenhower paved the way for international cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation in that speech, which ultimately led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the only international organization that can monitor and report state compliance with non-proliferation agreements and is actively doing so in 180 states as well as being responsible for helping non-nuclear states not develop nuclear weapons programs. Eisenhower’s lesson on the importance of global cooperation on nuclear weapons was portrayed in A House of Dynamite. In the film, cooperation with other states is lacking. While the film does feature a brief conversation with Russia, ideally in the real world there would be more tangible efforts to consult with foreign governments on the emerging crisis. Without international cooperation with allies and adversaries, the fictional President is left with a stark choice that could mean Armageddon. Following President Eisenhower’s advice on international cooperation toward non-proliferation would make last-ditch efforts and impossible choices less likely to be necessary.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower famously warned the American public of the emerging “military-industrial complex,” which could have “unwarranted influence” over the country and threaten democracy. The outsized role of the military is reflective of the “unwarranted influence” that Eisenhower warned the American public about in 1961 and has stood in the way of non-proliferation and disarmament. This is demonstrated in A House of Dynamite especially when the Secretary of Defense expresses dismay at the fact that American nuclear missile defense systems have cost “$50 billion for a [expletive] coin toss.” The film’s writer, Noah Oppenheim, said A House of Dynamite is an “exploration of the military industrial complex in the 21st century.” This exploration seeks to educate the audience on Eisenhower’s warnings.
The military-industrial complex is also a factor contributing to the normalization of nuclear weapons in the United States — something President Eisenhower sought to prevent. A House of Dynamite’s Academy Award-winning director Kathryn Bigelow calls American attitudes toward nuclear weapons a “cultural amnesia,” saying their existence has been “normalized.” This normalization takes away from the sense of urgency that nuclear weapons once created — which makes the problem reproduce itself. Because the once-clear sense of urgency around nuclear war no longer exists, with each day that passes, nuclear normalization continues. Throughout his “Atoms for Peace” speech, Eisenhower sought to do the opposite — he highlighted the destructive power of nuclear weapons to the public in an international forum. To take a lesson from President Eisenhower on nuclear weapons would be to understand the need to be actively aware of the dangers they pose rather than falling into the comfortable complacency of accepting them.
Bigelow’s choice to highlight President Eisenhower in A House of Dynamite is understandable, as so many of his lessons on nuclear weapons ring true today. To carry forth non-proliferation advocacy with Eisenhower in mind would be to do so with a lens of global cooperation, with an understanding of the risks of excessive defense spending and with a proactive sense of urgency.
