Democratic legislators have introduced a legislative effort to block a contentious nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The proposal comes as the deal faces a mandatory three-month congressional review period.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, alongside Reps. Brad Sherman, John Garamendi, and Don Beyer, filed the Joint Resolution of Disapproval on Wednesday. The move occurred just before lawmakers departed Washington for the pre-election recess ahead of the midterm elections. A vote on the resolution is not expected until November.
If the resolution fails to secure a two-thirds majority in either chamber, President Donald Trump is expected to veto it, allowing the nuclear agreement to proceed under its current terms. The deal, formally known as a 123 agreement, would permit American companies to engage in nuclear energy projects in Saudi Arabia valued at tens of billions of dollars. The administration has characterized the partnership as a demonstration of strengthening bilateral relations.
However, the agreement has drawn sharp criticism from national security experts and members of Congress due to fears that it could facilitate Saudi nuclear weapons development. Unlike previous accords adhering to the “gold standard,” this deal limits inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to only declared nuclear sites, excluding undeclared locations where research relevant to nuclear weapons could take place.
Furthermore, the text of the agreement establishes a bilateral study into the feasibility of constructing an enrichment facility within Saudi Arabia. A subsequent study could potentially allow for the enrichment of uranium up to 20%. Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, described the enrichment provision as vaguely defined in the signed accord.
“Enrichment to 20% poses a more significant risk because enriching to that level constitutes the majority of work necessary to enrich to weapons-grade levels, or 90%,” Davenport stated. She noted that the U.S. has previously raised alarms about Iran’s pursuit of 20% enrichment.
Tensions surrounding the deal are compounded by past statements from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has suggested that Riyadh would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran acquired one. In its August 27 communication to Congress, the Trump administration acknowledged these “concerning public statements.”
Defending the agreement in July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that without U.S. involvement, Saudi Arabia might have turned to American rivals such as China or Russia. “We’re not the only show in town but we’re the best show in town,” Rubio said, emphasizing the desire for American companies to secure the contracts.
In response to the ongoing scrutiny, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Republican Sens. John Kennedy and Rand Paul, wrote to Rubio and Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Wednesday. They requested the declassification of two “side letters” referenced by the White House as part of the deal, arguing there is no precedent for keeping such documents secret when the stated purpose is peaceful nuclear cooperation.
While the resolution to entirely strike down the deal is considered unlikely to pass given Republican control of Congress, lawmakers are also exploring options to attach conditions to the agreement through alternative legislative measures.
Wait, the vote isn’t until November? That feels like a strategic delay to avoid questions during the recess.
Is anyone else worried about the bipartisan push to declassify those secret side letters? Transparency matters.
Who cares about inspection risks? Saudi Arabia is an ally, and China will build reactors there if we don’t.
Great to see Democrats actually standing on principle here, even if the veto is likely. We can’t let enrichment slide.