Saudi nuclear agreement nears December entry into force as disapproval resolutions sit in committee

By Anselm Dorsey

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia is moving toward a December entry into force, with resolutions to block it sitting untouched in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as Congress breaks for the Nov. 3 election.

President Trump told Congress the deal advances U.S. interests. In his Aug. 24 transmittal letter, printed as House Document 119-191, he wrote that the agreement “meets all applicable statutory requirements and will advance the nonproliferation and other foreign policy interests of the United States,” and that he had determined its performance “will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who signed the agreement with Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman on July 22, said at the time that “these agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” according to the American Nuclear Society’s Nuclear Newswire. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defending the deal in July, said Saudi Arabia could otherwise have turned to China or Russia: “We’re not the only show in town but we’re the best show in town,” ABC News reported.

What the agreement allows

According to the transmittal letter, the agreement runs for 30 years and would permit transfers of nuclear material, equipment including reactors, components and information. It would allow transfer of sensitive nuclear technology “to support a joint enrichment and conversion study or upon written agreement of the parties,” but not restricted data, and any special fissionable material transferred would be low-enriched uranium apart from small quantities for samples and similar uses. The deal was “concluded with two accompanying side letters,” the letter says, and a classified annex to the administration’s nonproliferation assessment was to be sent to Congress separately.

Under the deal, the two countries will conduct an enrichment and conversion study within two years, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution. The agreement does not permit enrichment in the kingdom from the outset, Brookings found. Nuclear Newswire reported that it could open the door to Saudi enrichment up to 5% uranium-235, with a possible later increase to less than 20%.

Critics’ central objections are that the agreement drops the so-called gold standard, a commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing that the United Arab Emirates accepted in its 2009 agreement, and that it does not require Saudi Arabia to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol for broader inspections. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said in September that the protocol is “the ideal setup” but that “there are a number of countries which don’t have Additional Protocols,” and that the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the agency are developing arrangements with “authorizations and capacities which are very similar,” Nuclear Newswire reported.

The resolutions in committee

Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, such an agreement takes effect after 90 days of continuous session unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval. The president’s letter says the first 30 days are for consultation with the two foreign affairs committees.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the Foreign Affairs Committee’s ranking member, introduced H.J.Res. 217 on Sept. 16 with Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.). Congress.gov lists 14 cosponsors, all Democrats, and no action since its referral to the committee. “There’s no credible reason Saudi Arabia should get a weaker deal” than the UAE, the four lawmakers said in a committee Democrats’ release, citing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s 2023 remark that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, “we must obtain one as well.”

In the Senate, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a Foreign Relations member, and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced S.J.Res. 221 on Oct. 15 under a Sept. 30 Senate order, and it was referred to the committee. Their release says it sets up Senate consideration after Nov. 29. “We can’t sleepwalk into a decision this consequential,” Merkley said. The resolution text refers to the agreement as transmitted on Sept. 14, while the House document is dated Aug. 27, the day it was referred to the House committee.

Brookings concluded that given the law’s “very high bar,” the agreement “will almost surely enter into force, probably as early as December 2026.” A disapproval resolution would need to survive a likely veto, which requires two-thirds of both chambers. Matt Bowen and Richard Nephew of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy argued in a September commentary that Congress should allow the deal to take effect, while acknowledging that its departures “pose real risks,” and suggested lawmakers could attach conditions instead.

The side letters

The classified side letters have drawn objections from members of both parties. On Sept. 16, 18 senators, including Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and John Kennedy of Louisiana, asked Rubio and Wright to declassify and release them, writing that they were “aware of no precedent for classifying and withholding the side letters,” according to a release from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a signer. The Inquisitor did not find a public release of the letters.

Congress.gov shows no committee action on either resolution, and the Inquisitor found no markup or hearing on them announced by Foreign Relations Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho) or Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast (R-Fla.).

Who was contacted

The Inquisitor asked the State Department, the Energy Department, Chairman Risch’s committee press office, Chairman Mast’s committee staff, Rep. Meeks’s committee staff, Sen. Merkley’s office and the Saudi Embassy for comment, and will update this story with any response.

Photo: Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. Kristie Boyd, U.S. House Office of Photography, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).