On December 17, The New York Times released the results of its survey of all 530 incoming Members of Congress. They asked three critical questions about the president’s sole authority to launch a preemptive or first nuclear strike or launch a nuclear attack without congressional approval in response to an enemy’s incoming nuclear missile attack:
a. Should any American president be able to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack without congressional approval?
b. Should any American president be able to launch a nuclear attack without congressional approval in response to an enemy’s incoming nuclear missile attack?
c. Please give us an answer on a scale of 1 to 4: How comfortable are you with the fact that President Trump has this unilateral authority? 1. Very comfortable. 2. Somewhat comfortable. 3. Not too comfortable. 4. Not at all comfortable.
Our response to the survey
At the Council, we believe:
a. No. No president should be able to launch a nuclear first strike.
b. Yes. We believe presidents should be able to respond to a nuclear attack in kind without consulting Congress.
c. 4. Not at all comfortable. But it’s not political — we’re not at all comfortable with any one person having the ability to launch a first nuclear strike.
How Council-endorsed candidates responded to the survey
These candidates and Members of Congress were either endorsed in 2024 or, in the case of some Senators, were endorsed in their most recent election.
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)
a. No. There should be statutory limits restricting first-use nuclear strikes.
b. Yes. If the United States ever faces an imminent nuclear attack, time will be of the essence in determining a response. While I’m inclined to provide as much congressional oversight as possible over the use of our nuclear arsenal, it’s not realistic to expect any president to wait for congressional approval in this scenario.
c. Not at all comfortable
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
a. No. A president should be required to get congressional approval before initiating the first use of nuclear weapons.
b. Yes. Deterrence requires that the president should be able use nuclear weapons in response to a verified nuclear attack against the homeland of the United States.
c. Not at all comfortable. I am not at all comfortable giving any president the unilateral authority to start a nuclear war.
Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA)
a. No. The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. A first-use nuclear strike would be an act of war and, without congressional approval, would be unconstitutional. Such a strike would be immoral, disproportionate and something our Constitution makes clear no single person should be able to do alone. A no-first-use policy should be the law of the land. Since 2015, Representative Ted Lieu and I have introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act because no American president — or single individual — should have the power to launch a first-use nuclear first strike without explicit congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humankind, no matter what administration is in the White House.
b. No. It is vital that any U.S. president has clear authority to respond to nuclear attacks on the United States, our forces or our allies. But no president should have the power to launch a nuclear strike on the basis of an attack warning without explicit congressional approval. As we know from past experience, such warnings can be false alarms. Launching nuclear weapons in response to a false alarm would invite a nuclear retaliation against the United States, essentially starting WWIII. The president’s ability to be able to launch a nuclear first strike without congressional approval is the most egregious example of why Congress must wrestle this power from the executive branch. The president has the power to launch a nuclear first strike even if there is no attack on the United States or our allies, an act that can only be construed as tantamount to declaring war. This is unconstitutional, undemocratic and simply unbelievable. In today’s digital age, we need to ensure only humans have the power to command, control and launch nuclear weapons and safeguard the process from any future change in policy where A.I. could lead us to accidental global nuclear war by passing my Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act.
c. Not at all comfortable. Scared to death. I do not trust Donald Trump with nuclear weapons. He has a record of welcoming a 21st-century nuclear arms race with Russia, while simultaneously tearing down the global arms control regime that has brought stability, transparency and security to the world for decades. He believes that escalation and bullying are acceptable political tactics, and he is known to act impulsively and without consultation with other key decision makers. For example, Donald Trump has said: “[The U.S.] must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” And tweeted: “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” President Biden must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war now before Trump takes office. Using a nuclear weapon first is an act that can only be seen as a declaration of war, and there is no going back once it is launched. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, not the president. In about as long as it takes him to launch a tweet, President Trump could order America’s armed forces to launch a nuclear first strike. We must never again allow Donald Trump to have his finger near the nuclear button.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
a. No
b. No
c. Not at all comfortable
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
a. No. I am a co-sponsor of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, which would prevent any American president from launching a nuclear strike first without congressional approval.
b. No. While there is a necessity to respond quickly to an incoming nuclear attack, given the irreversible, devastating impact of such a strike, I firmly believe unilateral presidential authority to launch a nuclear attack must be governed by congressional oversight. Considering that several nuclear exchanges were almost initiated due to technological errors and falsely perceived attacks during the Cold War, it is imperative that our nuclear weapons are not used pre-emptively in response to a perceived attack.
c. Not at all comfortable. I am not comfortable with any president having the unilateral authority to launch a nuclear attack, and as co-chair of the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, I’ll keep pushing for a legislative solution to address this issue once and for all.
Senator Peter Welch (D-VT)
a. No. No individual should be empowered to make such an apocalyptic decision. The United States should adopt a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
b. Yes. If there is insufficient time to consult with Congress and an immediate response is necessary to deter the enemy from launching additional nuclear missiles.
c. Not at all comfortable
Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA)
a. No
b. No. Unless the attack is confirmed, verified and not only incoming but imminent. There have been too many close calls and false alarms that warrant being judicious before launching a nuclear attack.
c. Not at all comfortable
Representative Mike Levin (D-CA)
a. No. A nuclear attack would constitute an act of war, and I believe the president has a constitutional responsibility to seek congressional approval.
b. Yes. I believe it’s in the interest of our national security for the president to have the ability to retaliate against an attack on the United States.
c. Not at all comfortable. Trump proved that he is driven by his worst impulses. For example, in his first term, Trump taunted Kim Jong-un with nuclear warfare by tweeting, “My button is bigger than theirs.” He should not have unilateral authority over the nuclear codes.
Representative-elect Dave Min (D-CA)
a. No. No president should have the unilateral authority to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike without congressional approval. Our Constitution is clear: The power to declare war rests with Congress, reflecting the fundamental principle that such decisions must be made collectively, not by a single individual. A pre-emptive nuclear strike represents the most consequential act of war imaginable, with far-reaching humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. Such a decision demands the deliberation and consent of the people’s representatives. That’s why I fully support legislation like the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, championed by Congressman Ted Lieu. It would ensure that no president can launch a nuclear first strike without explicit authorization from Congress. This safeguard is essential to maintaining the balance of powers and reducing the risk of unnecessary and catastrophic conflicts.
b. In the case of an incoming nuclear missile attack, the president must retain the authority to respond decisively and immediately to protect the United States and its allies. This is a critical exception to the principle of requiring congressional approval for acts of war. When seconds or minutes could mean the difference between life and death for millions, the president, as commander in chief, must be empowered to act swiftly to neutralize an imminent threat. However, this authority must be paired with rigorous oversight and accountability to ensure it is not misused. While a response to an incoming attack may require immediate action, the use of nuclear weapons in any other context — such as a pre-emptive first strike — must involve congressional authorization.
c. Not at all comfortable
Representative Bill Foster (D-IL)
a. No. Unless there is a specific prior attack that it is responding to, it is hard to imagine a more definitive act of war than a pre-emptive nuclear launch. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the explicit responsibility of declaring war. As the president is commander in chief, if Congress has already declared war, then the president should be allowed to pursue that war through all of the tools at their disposal — up to and including nuclear use. However, in times of peace, the president should not be able to unilaterally launch a nuclear strike. A nuclear strike in peacetime would almost certainly upend the delicate balance of deterrence and plunge the world into nuclear war — a war that the president does not, according to our Constitution, have the authority to begin.
b. Yes. Being elected president of the most powerful country in the world comes with immense responsibilities. One of these is ensuring global stability through nuclear deterrence. Established during the Cold War, the principle of mutually assured destruction has, up until now, resulted in no uses of nuclear weapons during war since Nagasaki. That principle relies on the understanding that any nuclear attack on the United States will be met with an attack in kind. As the commander in chief, the president has the responsibility of using every tool at their disposal to keep the citizens of the United States safe. In times where arms control and strategic stability dialogues are becoming rarer and less effective, keeping the principles of deterrence alive can be the difference between life and death around the globe. Deterrence relies on having sane, rational leaders in control of nuclear arsenals. In preparation for the possibility that an unpredictable world leader comes to power, we need to reduce outstanding risk as much as possible. Then there will be much lower risk of false alarms and accidents like the one that Stanislav Petrov saved us from in 1983.
c. Not at all comfortable. President-elect Trump has shown throughout his first term and multiple campaigns that he does not have the rational temperament required to take on the responsibility of the United States’ nuclear arsenal. His inability to understand the technical, political and nonproliferation advantages of the Iran deal and his willingness to listen to advisers pushing the resumption of harmful, unnecessary nuclear testing shows his lack of qualifications. His unpredictability in dealing with both allies and adversaries has shown that he also lacks the personality that would allow me to feel comfortable with him holding the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons.
Representative-elect John Mannion (D-NY)
a. No. The use of nuclear weapons should be avoided at all costs, and the Constitution is clear that Congress decides on whether the U.S. goes to war. Protecting and defending Americans is a sacred duty I take very seriously, and Congress must work with the president to ensure the U.S. engages responsibly and in a way that safeguards American families, our service members and global allies. A pre-emptive nuclear strike should require congressional approval.
b. Yes. The use of nuclear weapons should be avoided at all costs, and the Constitution is clear that Congress decides on whether the U.S. goes to war. Practically, this scenario would constitute an urgent national emergency, and the decision would likely need to be made very quickly to protect American families, our service members and global allies.
c. No response
Representative Donald Beyer (D-VA)
a. No
b. Yes
c. Not at all comfortable
