The deal, formalized as a Section 123 agreement under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, includes a bilateral safeguards agreement and paves the way for U.S. technology to support Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program. The Trump administration framed the pact as a “historic” step to strengthen global nonproliferation standards, while critics warned it could enable uranium enrichment and destabilize the Middle East.
The Agreement Details
The agreement, finalized by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, establishes a legal framework for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership. The U.S. Department of Energy emphasized that the deal would uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,
leveraging American technology and expertise. However, the framework also raises questions about Saudi Arabia’s potential to enrich uranium domestically, a capability that could theoretically be repurposed for weapons development.
Key elements of the agreement include a 30-year commitment to U.S.-Saudi collaboration and the involvement of American firms like Westinghouse, Bechtel, and BWXT. These companies would supply sensitive nuclear equipment, according to Jonathan Hinze of UxC, a nuclear fuel market analyst. The deal requires congressional approval under the Atomic Energy Act, with the Energy Department stating it will now be submitted for review.
While the Trump administration highlighted the economic benefits, including job creation in the U.S. nuclear sector, the agreement’s terms remain opaque. A source close to the deal told the Associated Press that the framework could lead to a Saudi uranium enrichment facility after a joint U.S.-Saudi study. However, the Energy Department’s public statements did not address enrichment specifics, leaving room for speculation. The U.S. is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation,
said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, though his comments were made before the deal’s formal announcement.
Reactions and Concerns
The deal has drawn sharp criticism from nonproliferation experts and lawmakers. Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called it a severe strategic failure
that would make us all less safe,
arguing it risks fueling a regional arms race.
Some U.S. media outlets reported that the agreement could allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, a claim the Energy Department did not confirm or deny. This ambiguity has fueled skepticism. Alexander Bollfrass of the International Institute for Strategic Studies called the deal a revolutionary new approach
to nonproliferation policy, noting that it deviates from standard international safeguards. The agreement does not include the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which would enable more rigorous inspections, a departure from the UAE’s 2009 nuclear deal with the U.S.
For more on this story, see US Set to Sign 30-Year Nuclear Energy Partnership Agreement With Saudi Arabia.
Critics also pointed to Saudi Arabia’s history of nuclear ambitions. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has previously suggested the kingdom would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran acquired one, a statement that has long alarmed regional rivals. The U.S. war against Iran, which began in part to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, adds another layer of complexity.
Supporters of the agreement, including Energy Secretary Wright, emphasized its economic and strategic benefits. Together, these two agreements lay the legal foundation for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership that advances several priority economic and strategic objectives, including nuclear nonproliferation,
he stated. The deal also aligns with Saudi Arabia’s broader energy diversification goals, as the kingdom currently relies almost entirely on fossil fuels.
Implications for the Region
The agreement’s long-term impact hinges on its implementation and oversight. If approved, it could reshape the Middle East’s nuclear landscape, with Saudi Arabia positioning itself as a regional energy leader. However, the absence of IAEA inspections and the potential for uranium enrichment have raised alarms. The revolutionary aspect of this agreement is that the United States is not asking Saudi Arabia to abide by the highest possible safeguards,
Bollfrass said, highlighting the departure from conventional nonproliferation norms.
The deal also reflects broader geopolitical shifts. Saudi Arabia has long sought to balance its relationship with the U.S. against growing ties with Russia and China, which offer less stringent nuclear safeguards. By securing this agreement, the U.S. aims to bolster its influence in the region.
Looking ahead, the agreement’s fate rests with Congress, where it faces potential opposition. Democratic lawmakers have already signaled resistance, citing proliferation risks. If approved, the deal could also face scrutiny from international partners, including the IAEA, which has called for stricter monitoring of nuclear programs. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s commitment to peaceful nuclear use remains untested, with its leadership’s rhetoric on weapons development casting a shadow over the pact.
The U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal underscores the complex interplay of energy, security, and diplomacy. While it promises economic opportunities and strategic alignment, its success will depend on transparent oversight and adherence to nonproliferation principles. As the Energy Department prepares to submit the agreement for congressional review, the world watches to see whether this “historic” partnership will strengthen global security or ignite new tensions in an already volatile region.
Related reading
