Edward Markey (D-MA)
A resolution urging the United States to lead a global effort to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.
A Democratic resolution with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S4422)
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 Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution urges the United States to take a leadership role in a global movement to stop and reverse the nuclear arms race. It calls on the President to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons as a vital national security priority. The resolution suggests engaging in good faith negotiations with other nuclear-armed nations, including Russia and China, to reduce and eliminate arsenals. It also proposes ending the "hair-trigger alert" posture and the first-use option for nuclear weapons. Additionally, the resolution seeks to protect communities and workers affected by nuclear activities. Finally, it calls for a just economic transition for those currently employed in the nuclear weapons industry.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
The resolution aims to end the production of new warheads and delivery systems, which would significantly cut defense costs.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill calls for full remediation of environmental contamination from nuclear activities.
- Scored +6
Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad?
The resolution emphasizes good faith negotiations with major nuclear-armed nations to reduce global risk.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduction of Global Risks: The resolution aims to prevent nuclear war, which scientific models suggest could kill hundreds of millions of people directly and cause global famine and climate disruption. (Preamble)
-
Financial Relief for Taxpayers: Ending plans to produce and deploy new nuclear warheads and delivery systems would reduce the financial burden on United States taxpayers. (Section 2, E)
-
Environmental and Health Protection: The resolution calls for the full remediation of environmental contamination caused by nuclear weapons activities, which protects communities and workers. (Section 2, G, i)
-
Medical Support and Compensation: It seeks to provide health monitoring, compensation, and medical care to individuals harmed by nuclear weapons research, testing, and production. (Section 2, G, ii)
-
Economic Stability for Workers: The resolution calls for actively planning a just economic transition for the civilian and military workforce, as well as for communities economically dependent on nuclear-related facilities. (Section 2, H)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly listed within the text of the resolution.
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 children be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear war reduces the long-term existential risks to future generations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear winter/famine protects global food production essential to farmers. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Economic transition plans and health care coverage provide stability for vulnerable workers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduced government spending on nuclear weapons may reduce the tax burden. Would students be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear war protects the stability of the world students will inherit. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Preventing nuclear war reduces the long-term existential risks to future generations.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The resolution aims to end the production of new warheads and delivery systems, which would significantly cut defense costs. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — The resolution emphasizes good faith negotiations with major nuclear-armed nations to reduce global risk. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — By pursuing arms control and disarmament treaties, the resolution seeks to improve international stability and cooperation.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — By opposing the expensive modernization of nuclear forces, the resolution aims to reduce long-term federal expenditures. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The resolution calls for ending plans to produce and deploy new nuclear warheads, which would reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill calls for full remediation of environmental contamination from nuclear activities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill calls for health monitoring, compensation, and medical care for those harmed by nuclear activities.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/3/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/4/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2025
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S4422)
- 4 Cosponsors added.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts