The United States and Saudi Arabia officially signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement on Wednesday, July 22, 2026.
The agreement was signed by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Saudi Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman.
The deal has become one of the most controversial agreements in the history of the United States’ nuclear nonproliferation policy.
According to Al Jazeera, the agreement, known as the “123 Agreement,” will remain in effect for 30 years.
One of its most significant—and controversial—provisions allows Saudi Arabia to develop domestic uranium enrichment facilities after a joint feasibility study conducted by the United States and Saudi Arabia is completed.
Uranium enrichment itself is not prohibited under international law.
The process is used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.
However, the same technology can also be used to produce highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons if the enrichment process continues to higher levels.
According to the Las Vegas Sun, the agreement also requires Saudi Arabia to use U.S. companies to build its nuclear reactors.
One of the biggest beneficiaries is expected to be Westinghouse, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based nuclear reactor manufacturer.
The Trump administration last month also approved a US$17.5 billion loan to accelerate the construction of 10 large Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia.
Each AP1000 reactor is capable of supplying electricity to hundreds of thousands of households.
The agreement also includes supply chain provisions that will benefit numerous other American companies, including uranium mining firms and manufacturers of reactor construction components.
The U.S. government estimates that the agreement will generate billions of dollars for the American nuclear industry.
Saudi Arabia has long sought to establish a civilian nuclear program as part of its economic diversification strategy to reduce its dependence on oil.
Negotiations over nuclear cooperation with the United States have continued across several previous administrations.
During President Joe Biden’s administration, the negotiations were linked to a requirement that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel, but that condition was removed under the Trump administration.
Criticism of the Agreement
Nevertheless, the agreement has drawn widespread criticism.
According to Al Jazeera, critics argue that the agreement falls below the standards applied to other U.S. nuclear cooperation partners.
For comparison, the United Arab Emirates signed a similar agreement in 2009 before constructing the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, but accepted conditions prohibiting uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
Nonproliferation experts have described the UAE model as the “gold standard.”
The Saudi agreement does not require the implementation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol, a mechanism that grants inspectors broader authority to verify that nuclear materials are not diverted for military purposes.
This has raised concerns among numerous nonproliferation experts.
Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman highlighted what he described as an inconsistency in U.S. policy.
According to Sherman, the U.S. military is currently bombing Iran over its insistence on uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing.
Yet at the same time, the United States has signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that effectively gives the kingdom the green light to pursue similar activities.
The only difference he sees, Sherman said, is that Westinghouse stands to earn substantial profits from the agreement, whereas Iran provides no commercial benefits to U.S. companies.
The agreement must still receive Congressional approval.
A two-thirds majority in Congress would be required to block the agreement and override a presidential veto.***
