Ted Lieu (D-CA)
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 35 Democratic cosponsors · See all 35 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025," aims to limit when the United States can initiate a nuclear strike. It establishes a policy that no first-use nuclear strike should occur without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The legislation prohibits the use of Federal funds for such strikes unless Congress has expressly authorized them through a declared war. To qualify as a first-use strike, the attack would be one conducted without the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff first confirming a nuclear attack against the United States, its territories, or its allies.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill seeks to prevent the long-term environmental consequences associated with nuclear warfare.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill strengthens the constitutional power of Congress over the President's authority to wage war.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill implements a check that requires a formal declaration of war by Congress before a nuclear strike occurs.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Restoring Constitutional Checks and Balances: The bill seeks to ensure that the decision to engage in massive warfare is made by the people's representatives rather than a single person, as found in Section 2(a)(2).
-
Protection Against Existential Risk: By restricting first-use strikes, the bill addresses the concern that nuclear weapons can instantly kill millions and create long-term health and environmental consequences (Section 2(a)(4)).
-
Prevention of Unconstitutional War: The bill aims to prevent a first-use strike conducted without a declaration of war, which it identifies as a violation of the Constitution (Section 2(a)(6)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are explicitly stated within the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill implements a check that requires a formal declaration of war by Congress before a nuclear strike occurs. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill strengthens the constitutional power of Congress over the President's authority to wage war.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The bill protects allies from being included in preemptive strikes by requiring congressional authorization. Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The bill restricts the use of Federal funds for first-use nuclear strikes unless Congress declares war.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill seeks to prevent the long-term environmental consequences associated with nuclear warfare.
- 5/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/13/2026
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- 12/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/12/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/4/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/5/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/11/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/23/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 16 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jake AuchinclossDemocrat · Massachusetts
Gabe AmoDemocrat · Rhode Island
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Donald BeyerDemocrat · Virginia
Steve CohenDemocrat · Tennessee
Joe CourtneyDemocrat · Connecticut
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Salud CarbajalDemocrat · California
Gilbert CisnerosDemocrat · California
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Maxine DexterDemocrat · Oregon
Raúl GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Val HoyleDemocrat · Oregon
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
John LarsonDemocrat · Connecticut
Mike LevinDemocrat · California
James McGovernDemocrat · Massachusetts
Grace MengDemocrat · New York
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Ilhan OmarDemocrat · Minnesota
Frank PalloneDemocrat · New Jersey
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
Mark PocanDemocrat · Wisconsin
Brad ShermanDemocrat · California
Janice SchakowskyDemocrat · Illinois
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Nydia VelázquezDemocrat · New York