“For half a century, ACA has been providing the world … with advocacy, analysis, and awareness on some of the most critical topics of international peace and security, including on how to achieve our common, shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
U.S. Congress Committees Seek New Nuclear Systems
July/August 2026
By Xiaodon Liang
Defense policy committees in both houses of Congress have proposed expansions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal in their respective drafts of the key annual defense policy bill, ahead of floor votes expected later this summer.
The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended June 10 in its approved draft of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027 that the full chamber authorize two new nonstrategic nuclear weapons—also known as “theater” or “tactical” nuclear weapons—despite the fact that the departments of Defense and Energy have yet to request funding for them.
If Congress also appropriates funding for the programs, the proposed authorizing language would allow the departments to begin developing one new surface-launched and air-launched nuclear weapon each.
Writing in Real Clear Defense May 26, five former nuclear policy officials from Democratic and Republican administrations called for development of a standoff nuclear-capable missile to pair with the F-35 combat jet, a delivery platform currently only certified to deliver the B-61 gravity bomb.
The unusual proposal to preauthorize new nuclear weapons programs comes as the Pentagon reviews the nuclear strategy internally, following the Trump administration’s decision not to pursue a full interagency nuclear posture review. (See ACT, April 2026.)
In a move that would provide insight into any changes that would result from this review, the House Armed Services Committee proposed an adjustment in its draft of the defense policy bill to the existing requirement that the president publish a report on the nuclear employment strategy of the United States following a nuclear posture review 60 days before implementing any changes.
The proposed change would mandate such a report—known as a “491 report,” after the relevant section of Title 10 of U.S. Code—after an evaluation “similar” to a full nuclear posture review. (See ACT, December 2024.)
The House committee also expressed interest in expanding U.S. nuclear forces but took a different approach from the Senate in its draft bill, as approved by the committee June 5. The bill proposed that the full House ask the Pentagon to conduct a study on potentially recertifying the B-1B bomber for nuclear missions.
The B-1B bomber was decertified following the George W. Bush administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. (See ACT, January/February 2002.)
The House committee also proposed granting the Pentagon increased flexibility to move funds across research and development, procurement, and operations and maintenance accounts for the Sentinel and Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Although the new authority comes with notification requirements, it will likely diminish Congress’s ability to specify how the Pentagon uses appropriated funds for the land-based leg of the triad.
Plutonium pit production requirements also would change, according to the House committee’s draft bill. The panel would modify the law to require that the National Nuclear Security Administration be capable of producing 180 plutonium pits per year by 2050. This goal builds upon the existing ambitious requirement that the agency be able to produce 80 pits per year by 2030.
Both committees continued to express concerns with the Pentagon’s plan for space-based missile-defense interceptors, with the House panel proposing that Congress ask the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office for an independent lifecycle cost estimate.
The Senate panel seeks to ring-fence travel funding as long as the department fails to submit a similar report from the Institute for Defense Analyses, as directed by Congress in its fiscal 2024 policy bill.
Senate committee members voted, however, against rescinding funding appropriated by Congress last year for space-based interceptors. Several Democrats joined the Republican majority to defeat the measure, 18-9.
The same committee did not take up any amendments related to nuclear testing.
Congressional sources had informed Arms Control Today earlier this spring that certain Republican offices in the Senate were considering sponsoring language that would seek to improve the readiness of the Energy Department to resume extremely low-yield explosive nuclear testing.