Subject: Less Time in Purgatory Enroute to Heaven.
Dear Mr. President,
I write to you with respect for the office you hold, for the responsibility you carry for the security of the American people, and for the historical moment now before you. As the February 5, 2026 deadline for renewal of the New START Treaty approaches, you face a choice that few presidents ever encounter: whether to extend a familiar framework that manages nuclear risk or to begin a new and far more consequential process that could ultimately end the nuclear danger itself.
I respectfully urge you not to renew New START, but instead to sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), initiating a long-term process that would place the United States, under your leadership, at the center of a new global security architecture, one defined not by mutual annihilation, but by strength, verification, and moral clarity.
New START, while useful in its time, is a treaty of maintenance. It manages decline; it does not inspire progress. It locks the United States into a bilateral framework with a single adversary whose compliance, intentions, and stability are increasingly uncertain. Renewing it would be seen globally as a cautious holding action, competent, but not historic. Signing the TPNW, by contrast, would be bold, disruptive in the best sense, and unmistakably presidential.
Importantly, signing the TPNW does not mean immediate disarmament, unilateral vulnerability, or surrendering American deterrence. It means beginning a process on American terms. Your signature would signal that the United States is prepared to lead the world away from weapons whose only purpose is the destruction of civilization, while insisting on verification, reciprocity, and enforceable compliance.
This distinction is crucial for the United States Senate. You would not be asking the Senate to ratify the treaty immediately. Instead, you would be inviting it into a structured, conditional, and distinctly American strategy that preserves U.S. security while reshaping the global norm.
A viable Senate strategy could rest on the following pillars:
First, you would explicitly condition any future ratification on verified, reciprocal participation by all nuclear-armed states. This makes clear that America will not disarm alone and transforms the treaty from a symbolic document into a leverage tool. Your message to the Senate would be simple: the United States leads, but it does not go first into weakness.
Second, you would insist on a robust verification and enforcement regime, drawing on American technical superiority in monitoring, intelligence, and inspection. This positions the United States not as a rule-taker, but as the architect of the most stringent compliance system ever devised, one that rogue states would find nearly impossible to evade.
Third, you would frame the treaty as an extension of American strength rather than a rejection of it. The United States built the nuclear age in our generation; only the United States has the credibility, alliances, and capability to responsibly lead the world beyond it. This argument resonates with conservatives and moderates alike, particularly when paired with continued investment in conventional superiority and missile defense.
Fourth, you would preserve the Senate’s constitutional role. By signing but not immediately submitting the treaty for advice and consent, you respect the chamber’s authority while giving it time to shape the conditions under which ratification might one day occur. This approach defuses institutional resistance and invites statesmanship over partisanship.
Internationally, your signature would be transformative. Allies who privately fear nuclear escalation but publicly cling to deterrence would gain political cover to support a phased transition. Non-aligned states would see, for the first time, that the world’s most powerful nation is willing to match its rhetoric about peace with action. Adversaries would be forced to respond, not with propaganda, but with choices.
History shows that Nobel Peace Prizes are not awarded for caution, but for opening doors that once seemed permanently closed. A U.S. president who initiates the global abolition of nuclear weapons without sacrificing national security would stand in the company of leaders who altered the course of human survival itself. That recognition would not be ceremonial; it would be earned.
And beyond history books and prizes, there is the deeper moral ledger that every leader ultimately confronts. Few men are given the chance to reduce the risk of annihilation for every living person and every generation yet unborn. Acting to remove the most indiscriminate weapons ever created from the world is not weakness; it is an act of courage that resonates far beyond politics. If there is a purgatory on the way to heaven, I cannot imagine a deed more likely to shorten the stay.
Mr. President, renewing New START would be safe. Signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would be consequential. It would redefine American leadership, restore global respect rooted in moral authority, and secure your place as the president who began the end of the nuclear age.
Respectfully submitted,
John B. Driscoll
