Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
Reaffirming Extended Nuclear Deterrence Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
This bill is known as the Reaffirming Extended Nuclear Deterrence Act of 2026. It expresses the official stance of Congress regarding the importance of the United States extended nuclear deterrent. The text states that this deterrent is a vital part of the national security strategy and helps deter major-power conflict. It notes that the credibility of this deterrence depends on the capability and resolve of the United States. Furthermore, the bill highlights commitments to specific allies like the Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, and NATO members. Finally, it points out that the strategic environment is increasingly dangerous due to actions by countries like Russia, China, and North Korea.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +7
Does this strengthen ties with allied countries?
Section 2 reaffirms ironclad extended deterrence commitments and defense cooperation with key allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NATO members.
- Scored +6
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
Section 2 highlights the pursuit of verifiable, enforceable, and reciprocal arms control and nuclear risk reduction agreements.
- Scored +6
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
Section 2 seeks to reduce the risk of major-power conflicts that could threaten United States forces and military personnel.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(4): This section states that credible deterrence commitments to allies like the Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, and NATO members directly advance United States national security interests by deterring aggression. This might be considered positive because it aims to reduce the risk of conflicts that could threaten United States forces, territory, and interests.
-
Section 2(5)(A): This provision notes that the assurance provided by the extended nuclear deterrent has reduced incentives for allies to develop or acquire independent nuclear weapons capabilities. This might be considered positive because it supports the objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and strengthens the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
-
Section 2(7): This section mentions that the United States should pursue verifiable, enforceable, and reciprocal arms control and nuclear risk reduction agreements. This might be considered positive because these agreements can enhance the security of the United States and its allies.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(6): This provision explicitly states that the strategic environment has become increasingly dangerous due to the modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, alongside North Korea's continued development of capabilities. This might be considered a negative reality or burden for people because it highlights escalating global threats and dangers from foreign nations.
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.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Section 2 reaffirms ironclad extended deterrence commitments and defense cooperation with key allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NATO members. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Section 2 highlights the pursuit of verifiable, enforceable, and reciprocal arms control and nuclear risk reduction agreements. Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Section 2 supports force readiness and deterrence to protect United States forces and interests.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Section 2 seeks to reduce the risk of major-power conflicts that could threaten United States forces and military personnel.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Thomas TillisRepublican · North Carolina