Sponsors (58)
The bill seeks to reduce nuclear risks and long-term defense costs through arms-control and testing restraints, but it risks short-term deterrence concerns, defense-sector job impacts, and potentially higher spending or instability if treaties lapse without replacement.
All Americans — lower risk of nuclear catastrophe if mutual, verifiable arms-control negotiations reduce deployed warheads.
Taxpayers — limiting or renewing treaties like New START can slow an expensive arms race and reduce future defense procurement costs.
Taxpayers and the global population — reaffirming U.S. suspension of explosive testing and support for testing bans strengthens nonproliferation norms and reduces environmental risks from detonations.
Taxpayers and state governments — if New START lapses without replacement, they could face sharply higher long-term defense spending and greater geopolitical instability.
Military personnel and taxpayers — a policy push toward deep disarmament could reduce perceived deterrence and, according to critics, raise short-term security risks.
Defense contractors, workers, and veterans — proposals to limit or reverse modernization could strand contractors and lead to job losses in the defense sector.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Records findings that large nuclear arsenals and certain U.S. policies pose catastrophic risks and affirms mutual, verifiable arms control as the preferred path.
Introduced April 9, 2025 by James P. McGovern · Last progress April 9, 2025
States congressional findings that large global nuclear arsenals remain a catastrophic risk and that mutual, verifiable arms control is the best path to reduce that risk. Notes numbers of weapons, recent geopolitical flashpoints, past near-misses, high costs to modernize forces, the U.S. Cold War-era launch posture, withdrawal from some treaties, and the looming New START expiration in 2026.