The Trump administration has signed a 30-year, multibillion-dollar nuclear energy cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, a deal that has quickly become controversial due to potentially including provisions for uranium enrichment facilities and conflicting statements from former President Donald Trump himself.
The agreement, signed by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and his Saudi counterpart, reportedly includes U.S. assistance in constructing facilities to enrich uranium for Saudi Arabia. This marks a departure from previous U.S. nuclear policy, which generally prevented partner nations from enriching their own fuel due to proliferation risks. Matthew Kroenig, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, described the potential assistance in uranium enrichment as "unprecedented in the history of US nuclear policy."
The timing of the deal is particularly sensitive, occurring while the U.S. is engaged in heightened tensions with Iran, a regional rival with its own nuclear enrichment program. Experts express concern that the agreement could escalate the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, especially given Saudi Arabia's past statements suggesting it would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran developed them.
Further complicating the situation, former President Trump issued a statement on social media casting doubt on key aspects of the deal. He asserted that "no enrichment of material" would occur and stipulated that the agreement is contingent on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations. These conditions were not mentioned in initial reporting by outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, which cited U.S. officials.
Sources close to the negotiations have indicated that no such pledge to join the Abraham Accords was part of the discussions. Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that normalization with Israel is dependent on the creation of a Palestinian state. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt later affirmed that the deal would be terminated if Saudi Arabia did not join the Abraham Accords.
This civil nuclear cooperation has been a subject of pursuit by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Proponents argue that such a deal would strengthen U.S.-Saudi strategic ties, provide a boost to the U.S. nuclear industry, and prevent Saudi Arabia from turning to China or Russia for nuclear technology. Saudi Arabia maintains its nuclear ambitions are solely for peaceful energy purposes, aiming to diversify its economy beyond oil and gas.
However, nonproliferation experts remain skeptical. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment, warned that even with technological safeguards, Saudi Arabia could nationalize enrichment facilities, posing a risk given its stated interest in proliferation. Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, suggested that the deal could enable Saudi Arabia to acquire the capabilities necessary to weaponize nuclear technology, potentially complicating ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and setting a concerning precedent.
The agreement is now subject to a 90-day review period in Congress, during which a joint resolution would be required to oppose it. While opposition is expected from both parties due to security concerns and potential conflicts of interest, including scrutiny around individuals with financial ties to Saudi nuclear initiatives, it remains uncertain whether a veto-proof majority can be secured to block the deal. The primary question may lie in whether former President Trump's stated conditions, particularly the Abraham Accords requirement, will effectively halt the agreement, as it could be a nonstarter for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.