Edward Markey (D-MA)
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
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
The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025 seeks to limit the circumstances under which 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. To enforce this, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for such a strike unless Congress has expressly authorized it through a declaration of war. This definition applies specifically to attacks conducted without prior confirmation of a nuclear strike against the U.S., its territories, or its allies.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +3
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
Requiring a declaration of war shifts the nuclear posture toward more deliberate and diplomatically scrutinized actions.
- Scored +2
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
By preventing unnecessary first-use strikes, the bill reduces the likelihood of large-scale military engagement.
- Scored +2
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
The bill protects allies by ensuring nuclear strikes are only conducted following a formal congressional declaration of war.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Checks and Balances: By requiring a declaration of war, the bill aims to ensure that the decision to use nuclear weapons is made by the people's representatives rather than a single person (Section 2(a)).
-
Reduction of Existential Risk: The bill addresses the finding that nuclear weapons can kill millions and create long-term health and environmental consequences, potentially protecting the population from the consequences of a first-use strike (Section 2(a)(4)).
-
Protection of Global Peace: The act seeks to prevent strikes that could undermine global peace and expose the United States to retaliatory nuclear strikes (Section 2(a)(4)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are explicitly detailed 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — By preventing unnecessary first-use strikes, the bill reduces the likelihood of large-scale military engagement. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reducing global conflict risks protects all populations from the consequences of nuclear warfare. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects the safety of U.S. allies, which may include populations in the Pacific region. Would farmers be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear war protects the long-term viability of agricultural environments. Would gun owners be better off under this? — The bill focuses on limiting large-scale state violence rather than individual rights. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The policy aims to prevent the massive destruction of civilized society and economic systems. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill aims to prevent large-scale loss of life through restricted nuclear use. Would immigrants be better off under this? — A more stable global environment reduces the likelihood of catastrophic conflict-driven migration. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The policy aims to protect the fundamental stability of society. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict provides greater stability for vulnerable populations. Would men be better off under this? — The bill seeks to minimize the massive death associated with modern warfare. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Mitigating existential risks protects the long-term stability of the national economy and society. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Reducing the risk of nuclear strikes provides greater existential security for all residents. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear catastrophes protects the most vulnerable members of society. Would retired people be better off under this? — Preventing existential threats preserves the social security and stability of the nation. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Reducing the risk of nuclear fallout protects environmental and agricultural stability. Would students be better off under this? — Ensuring global peace protects the future of all living generations. Would union members be better off under this? — Reducing the risk of massive societal destruction protects workers' long-term stability. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Restricting nuclear use helps prevent the massive casualties associated with modern warfare. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill aims to reduce the risk of retaliatory strikes against the United States. Would women be better off under this? — Reducing the threat of nuclear war provides greater global stability.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Requiring a declaration of war shifts the nuclear posture toward more deliberate and diplomatically scrutinized actions. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The bill protects allies by ensuring nuclear strikes are only conducted following a formal congressional declaration of war. Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — By restricting first-use nuclear strikes, the bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of large-scale warfare and its associated casualties.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill enhances the legislative branch's power to check the President's authority over nuclear weapons. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill introduces constitutional checks and balances on the executive's power to initiate war.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill seeks to mitigate the long-term environmental consequences caused by nuclear weapons usage.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill aims to reduce existential risks that could destroy the socio-economic fabric of society.
- 4/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/22/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts