Neal Dunn (R-FL)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that illicit fentanyl-related substances are a weapon of mass destruction and should be classified as such, and recognizing President Trump's efforts to mitigate illicit narcotics from entering the United States through such actions as signing an Executive Order "Designating Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction" and declaring the crisis caused by the rise of fentanyl a national health emergency.
A Republican resolution with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
H. Res. 959 expresses the opinion of the House of Representatives that illicit fentanyl-related substances should be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. The resolution recognizes President Trump's past actions in designating fentanyl as such and declaring the crisis a national health emergency. It identifies China, Mexico, and India as sources of these substances or precursors. The resolution concludes by stating the President should classify these substances as weapons of mass destruction and permanently place them in schedule I.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +8
Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths?
Aims to combat the leading driver of the opioid crisis by classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction and placing it in schedule I.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Classification as a Weapon of Mass Destruction: The resolution suggests the President classify synthetic illicit fentanyl-related substances as a weapon of mass destruction, which addresses the fact that a single kilogram can kill 500,000 individuals. (Resolved section 1)
-
Schedule I Placement: The resolution states that illicit fentanyl and related substances should be permanently placed in schedule I, aiming to combat the leading driver of the ongoing opioid crisis. (Resolved section 2)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts for individuals or groups are mentioned in 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the lethal drug crisis affecting all communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the lethal drug crisis affecting all communities. Would children be better off under this? — Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General public health improvement by targeting the source of fentanyl. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the lethal drug crisis affecting all communities. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General public health benefit by combating fentanyl. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Opioid crises often disproportionately impact vulnerable low-income communities. Would men be better off under this? — General public health benefit by combating fentanyl. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General public health improvement by targeting the source of fentanyl. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the lethal drug crisis affecting all communities. Would retired people be better off under this? — General public health benefit by combating fentanyl. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Combats the flow of illicit drugs into populated areas. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community. Would students be better off under this? — Reduces the prevalence of synthetic opioids in school-age demographics. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Combats the flow of illicit drugs into populated areas. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — General public health benefit by combating fentanyl. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the lethal drug crisis affecting all communities. Would women be better off under this? — General public health benefit by combating fentanyl. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces availability of lethal synthetic opioids in the community.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Aims to combat the leading driver of the opioid crisis by classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction and placing it in schedule I.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — Highlights the need to stop the flow of fentanyl across the porous Southern border.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Urges the President to exercise federal authority to classify substances as weapons of mass destruction.
- 10/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/18/2025
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania