Nuclear war shouldn’t come down to just one person — especially when it’s Trump

By Scott Peters

President Trump’s attack on Iran and his proposal to resume U.S. nuclear weapons testing has jolted Americans back to a darker era of Cold War brinkmanship, when impulsive decisions could push the world toward catastrophe.

It’s a stark reminder that one person can, at any moment, order the use of nuclear weapons with almost no oversight. My bill, the Nuclear First-Strike Security Act, would establish safeguards to prevent an impulsive or reckless first strike, without weakening our ability to defend our country.

Any president currently has the authority to start a nuclear war solely on his or her word, with little to no consultation. My bill requires certification by the secretary of Defense that a presidential order for a nuclear first strike is valid and legal.

Some will argue that this legislation ties the president’s hands in a crisis. Others will criticize its launch-on-warning exception as weakening it too much. Both are valid points that reflect the real tension between speed and restraint in nuclear decision-making. But there is no way to limit the very dangerous sole authority of a president to launch a nuclear war, while still giving him unlimited ability to respond to a national security crisis.

There is a trade-off between those two risks, and the Nuclear First-Strike Security Act is a good first step. It only requires the concurrence of the secretary of Defense, who will almost certainly be reachable during a crisis. It’s not an onerous hurdle, but a basic safeguard.

Others argue that this bill is only a half step that distracts from an even greater goal: nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament, advanced by some, may well be part of the solution, but there is currently no global consensus on how to achieve that goal. The expiration of the New START Treaty — the last remaining bilateral treaty constraining Russian and U.S. nuclear forces — and the ongoing growth in China’s nuclear arsenal indicate that nuclear disarmament is not a realistic near-term goal.

A dangerous decision-making system in Washington means Congress must act to provide certainty that the U.S. will remain a responsible and reliable nuclear power.  

Multiple members of Congress have introduced proposals that advance this goal. In addition to my “Nuclear First Strike Security Act of 2025,” These proposals include Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu’s (D-Calif.) “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025,” and Rep. Dina Titus’s (D-Nev.) “Restrain Act.” These bills would reassert Congress’s constitutionally mandated power, prevent the first use of nuclear weapons, and strengthen arms control and congressional oversight. This level of congressional interest provides hope that Congress can take a leading role on the issue.

Americans vest their elected representatives in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives with the power to make decisions on their behalf in the service of the public good. It’s time for Congress to honor its responsibility by passing laws that instill Americans with the faith that their government will not recklessly employ nuclear weapons.

The world remains a volatile, unpredictable and threatening place. Last year brought heightened tensions in the Middle East and continued illegal Russian aggression in Ukraine. Recently the administration captured a foreign leader, which should remind elected members and the public how quickly decisions of national security can occur. Congress cannot remain on the sidelines while a single person holds the power to trigger nuclear catastrophe without oversight or accountability.

It is estimated that a child born today has about even odds of living out his or her natural life without experiencing or being killed in a major nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are the original human-created threat to our existence. But biological weapons threaten civilization, with climate change and artificial intelligence possibly doing the same. None of those problems will be solved in the current world environment. A more cooperative world is needed to solve all of them, and my proposal is an excellent first step toward that goal.

From a U.S.-Russia arms control treaty lapsing to sudden military actions in Iran and Venezuela, the risks of impulsive or unilateral decisions are real and immediate. The time to act is now. My bill is ready to pass and would create a simple but vital check on the most dangerous authority any president holds.

Scott Peters represents California’s 50th Congressional District — San Diego — and serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Budget Committee.