Could Congressional Resolutions Reverse the New Nuclear Arms Race?

On March 10, 1982, Senators Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced a U.S. Senate resolution calling for a freeze on the testing, production, and further deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems with the United States and the Soviet Union.

Hatfield, a former Navy lieutenant, had been one of the first US military personnel to enter Hiroshima after the atomic bombing, which had a profound effect on his thinking about nuclear weapons. Their resolution, while it did not pass, undoubtedly helped the nuclear freeze campaign reach its peak in the 1980s. By May of 1982, 83% of Americans supported the nuclear freeze proposal.

Today, we are witnessing a similar strategy of proposing new Congressional resolutions aimed at nuclear disarmament. However, with competing resolutions, it can be difficult to decipher what this all means and if this is an effective strategy to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. So, let’s dive in and break down the current landscape.

Deciphering Congressional Resolutions

Like the original freeze initiative, one way in which ordinary people can advocate for nuclear disarmament is through congressional resolutions. One can lobby, call, and email their local, state, and federal representatives to sponsor and vote for a certain resolution focused on the nuclear threat. This was effective in the 1980s as it provided agency for millions who marched and rallied, but needed something to work on when they returned to their respective cities and towns.

Back from the Brink, a grassroots disarmament organization, has been a leader in support of HS 317 and S 323. These resolutions call on Congress and the President to do the following:

1. Pursue a world free of nuclear weapons;
2. Negotiate with the other nuclear powers to halt the arms race, and come to an agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons;
3. Implement checks and balances for the US president’s sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;
4. Take nuclear weapons off “hair-trigger” alert;
5. End plans to deploy new nuclear warheads and delivery systems;
6. Do not resume nuclear testing;
7. Protect and provide healthcare to those who are affected and have been victims of nuclear testing, production, and environmental contamination;
8. Actively plan a just economic transition for the civilian and military workforce involved in the development, testing, production, management, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons, and for the communities that are economically dependent on nuclear weapons laboratories, production facilities, and military bases.

HS 317 was introduced in April 2025 by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA-02) and Jill Tokuda (D-HI-02). At the time of writing this article, the bill has 34 cosponsors.

S 323 was introduced in July 2025 by Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Peter Welch (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Both bills were introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-26). But wait, there’s more.

There is also HS 1888. This resolution, titled the “Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act of 2025,” mandates the United States to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Additionally, it directs the conversion of resources and personnel from the nuclear weapons industry to addressing the climate crisis and other purposes. It calls for the dismantlement and elimination of all nuclear weapons in every country; strict and effective international control of such dismantlement and elimination; and working with the other nuclear-armed nations to ensure the verifiable and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons from all countries, in accordance with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This resolution currently has 9 cosponsors. We’re not finished.

HS 100 “condemns Russia's nuclear escalatory rhetoric and implied threats on the potential use of nuclear weapons in the context of its invasion of Ukraine.” The resolution condemns Russia's purported suspension of participation in the New START Treaty, emphasizes the value of arms control agreements between the United States and Russia, and calls on the administration to continue pursuing nuclear arms control and risk reduction with Russia and China. This one has 21 cosponsors.

 Are Congressional Resolutions the Best Strategy to Achieve Nuclear Disarmament?

Immediately, a few questions arise: Do we think any of these resolutions have any realistic possibility of becoming law or moving the needle on the issue of nuclear weapons? Is this the best strategy to achieve a world without nuclear weapons? The benefits of this approach are that it does provide agency to ordinary folks. As previously mentioned, they can lobby their local, state, and federal representatives to get on board and support the resolution. Introducing these resolutions can help voters determine who they support based on where candidates stand on the resolutions. Moreover, with enough support, there could come a time when we see a ballot initiative or vote in Congress on a particular resolution. In short, as Back from the Brink has shown, it can be an effective way to build a campaign.

However, competing resolutions could cause a splinter in the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons. With HS 317 and S 323 only briefly mentioning the TPNW, those who express the belief that the TPNW is the best way forward may opt to back HS 1888. In addition, the lengthier the resolution, the more likely we are to have people confused about the language and what to support. That was the genius of the original freeze resolution and now the TPNW: their simplicity. Another factor to consider is the effectiveness of spending large amounts of time trying to convince this Congress of backing any of these resolutions.

Regardless of where voters stand on these resolutions and the nuclear issue as a whole, there are some things that are not up for debate. We cannot expect people to back any of these resolutions if there is no education. We in the disarmament community, should be educating ordinary folks about these resolutions and how they can support them. Moreover, Congress creates our laws, including nuclear policy. Why not push them to pursue nuclear disarmament? Even if these are not passed immediately, the seeds are planted and momentum could build.

With all that said, October 28 marks 100 days until New START (New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), our last arms control treaty with Russia, expires. While Russian president, Vladimir Putin has stated that he will abide by the current treaty until 2027, President Trump has yet to comment. As a result, Arms Control Association and Win Without War have started a campaign aimed at creating a new nuclear freeze campaign. They are calling for the U.S. and other nuclear states to “immediately implement a mutual and verifiable halt to the deployment and development of more nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons systems.” It worked it in the 1980s so why not try it again?

The landscape of nuclear disarmament resolutions in 2025 reveals both the enduring power of grassroots organizing and the fundamental tensions within the movement itself. While congressional resolutions provide a necessary avenue for citizen engagement and help identify where elected officials stand on existential questions, the proliferation of competing proposals threatens to dilute the very clarity that made the 1980s freeze movement so successful.

The question facing the disarmament community is not whether to pursue congressional action, but rather how to balance multiple strategies simultaneously. History shows that the original freeze resolution gained traction not because it was the only tactic, but because it channeled widespread public concern into concrete political pressure. Today’s advocates need not choose between lobbying Congress and building alternative power—both are essential.

What remains non-negotiable is education. Without a public that understands the stakes, mechanisms, and moral imperatives of nuclear disarmament, no resolution will gain the momentum needed for passage. The clock is ticking toward New START’s expiration, and whether through reviving the freeze concept, advancing the TPNW, or supporting one of the current resolutions, the disarmament community must find ways to make nuclear weapons a voting issue again.
Ultimately, congressional resolutions are tools, not solutions. They work when backed by an informed, mobilized public that refuses to accept the normalization of nuclear weapons.

The 1980s freeze movement succeeded not because of elegant legislative language, but because millions of people made it impossible for politicians to ignore them. If today’s resolutions are to have any impact, they must inspire that same level of engagement—or the movement must honestly reckon with whether its energy is better spent building the post-nuclear world from the ground up, with or without Congress’s permission.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​