Lithuania considers constitutional change to allow nuclear weapons in Klaipėda port

Lithuania’s parliament will revisit a vetoed law that could permit ships carrying nuclear weapons to dock in Klaipėda, with the president suggesting a constitutional amendment may be needed to clarify the country’s nuclear deterrence policy, LRT reports.

The Seimas (parliament) had approved amendments to the Klaipėda State Seaport Law allowing vessels with nuclear arms or reactors to enter Lithuanian waters if deemed necessary for national security. However, President Gitanas Nausėda blocked the bill, citing Article 137 of the Constitution, which prohibits mass destruction weapons and foreign military bases on Lithuanian territory.

Nausėda’s office proposed launching a debate on amending the Constitution to better define Lithuania’s stance on nuclear deterrence, particularly in light of evolving NATO policies. “This isn’t just about France’s nuclear umbrella but also potential shifts in NATO’s nuclear strategy,” said presidential advisor Deividas Matulionis. “We must discuss whether we’re prepared or risk being sidelined as second-tier allies.”

Seimas Speaker Juozas Olekas supported the need for clarity, stating, “We rely on the U.S. and NATO’s nuclear deterrent, but formal discussions and decisions on this matter are overdue.” Conservative MP Arvydas Anušauskas argued the constitutional ban—originally targeting Soviet-era nuclear weapons—no longer aligns with Lithuania’s current geopolitical reality as a NATO member.

Lithuania currently participates in NATO’s nuclear sharing framework, depending on the U.S., UK, and French arsenals. Recent debates have centered on a potential European nuclear deterrent independent of U.S. control, with France expanding its own nuclear posture. National Security Committee member Dainius Gaižauskas emphasized trust in NATO’s revised defense plans, which now explicitly cover all 32 member states.

Liberal MP Eugenijus Gentvilas acknowledged the president’s role in upholding the Constitution but suggested constitutional amendments should be on the table. Any change would require a lengthy process, likely spanning at least two years.