Trump Signs Landmark Nuclear Deal With Saudi Arabia Raising Weapons Fears

A Historic — and Controversial — Agreement

The Trump administration on Wednesday signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that gives the kingdom a pathway to enriching nuclear fuel and commits it to using U.S. firms to supply its reactors. The deal, years in the making, is being celebrated by the White House as a commercial and strategic triumph — but it has immediately ignited a firestorm over whether the United States just handed a volatile region a potential road map to nuclear weapons.

Worth tens of billions of dollars, the pact is designed to offer American firms a leading role in building the kingdom's nuclear infrastructure, while locking out rival bidders. Known as a 123 agreement, it would last 30 years, with American companies providing technology and expertise to develop the Saudi program. That's an enormous commercial opportunity — but the terms attached to it are what have experts deeply alarmed.

The Enrichment Question

One of the deal's most significant provisions would permit Saudi Arabia to pursue domestic uranium enrichment following a joint U.S.-Saudi study. Enriching uranium is not illegal and is used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants — however, the same technology can also produce highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons if enrichment continues to much higher levels. That dual-use reality is at the heart of the debate.

Before uranium enrichment could begin, a joint U.S.-Saudi team would explore whether it is warranted and commercially viable, and Americans would build the facility without transferring the sensitive technology to Saudi Arabia. If the U.S. ultimately declines to proceed after that study, Saudi Arabia must wait a full decade before pursuing enrichment independently or with another partner. Supporters argue those guardrails are sufficient. Critics are far less convinced.

Saudi Arabia has previously said it would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran were ever to acquire one, although Tehran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful. That statement, made by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has never been walked back — and it looms over every discussion of this deal.

Sidelining the Nuclear Watchdog

The agreement leaves out the "Additional Protocol," which would have given the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency sweeping powers of oversight, including snap inspections of undeclared sites. Instead, Washington has accepted terms that could restrict international inspectors' access to locations suspected of diverting fuel towards weapons work. This stands in sharp contrast to the standard the U.S. itself set before.

The Saudi deal stands in direct contrast to the 2009 agreement between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates, whereby the UAE agreed to enhanced IAEA oversight and promised to forego enrichment and reprocessing — a deal nuclear experts refer to as the "gold standard" for nuclear cooperation. Energy Secretary Chris Wright argued in a statement that "the agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation." Many experts flatly disagree.

Congress Has 90 Days — and a Very High Bar

Once the 123 agreement is submitted to Congress, lawmakers have 90 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress will be required to vote on the agreement but would need a veto-proof majority to actually block it — a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers, a threshold that is extraordinarily difficult to reach in today's polarized political environment.

Some members of Congress and Israeli officials have said that permitting enrichment could leave open a future pathway to a Saudi nuclear weapons capability, even if the program begins for civilian purposes. Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Nonproliferation Program, has urged Congress to "block" the proposed agreement. Whether enough lawmakers share that urgency — and can act in time — is the defining question now hanging over the deal. The next 90 days will determine whether this becomes the most consequential nuclear agreement of the decade, or the most contested one.