Oregon Sen. Merkley warns “we can’t sleepwalk into a decision this consequential” as Senate gets chance to act “before it’s too late” over Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal that could trigger arms race

Oregon – “I refuse to let the U.S. sleepwalk into a dangerous nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley wrote on X on October 15, announcing that he and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey were moving to challenge President Donald Trump’s proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia.

Merkley, a Democrat and senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the two senators were taking action to ensure the Senate fulfills its responsibility to review the agreement before it takes effect.

The senators introduced a joint resolution of disapproval that would give lawmakers an opportunity to vote against the proposed U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear cooperation agreement, commonly known as a “123 agreement” under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

The measure sets up an opportunity for the Senate to consider the resolution after November 29, as the congressional review period approaches its deadline.

Reuters reported earlier in October that senators expected a vote on the agreement before December 13, amid concerns that the deal could increase the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

In a statement accompanying the announcement, Merkley argued that Saudi Arabia should not receive access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology without stronger safeguards to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.

“Giving Saudi Arabia access to U.S. civilian nuclear energy technology without ironclad protections to make sure it doesn’t provide a foundation for a nuclear bomb is unacceptable,” Merkley said.

He argued that countries pursuing civilian nuclear energy programs should agree to strict limits on uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, alongside rigorous international inspections.

Markey also criticized the agreement, arguing that it fails to meet established nonproliferation standards and could contribute to a regional nuclear arms race.

“The US-Saudi nuclear deal is about megatons, not megawatts,” Markey said, warning that the agreement could provide Saudi Arabia with a pathway toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

The central dispute concerns two safeguards that Merkley and Markey say should be included in the agreement.

The first is the so-called “gold standard,” a set of restrictions requiring partner countries to forgo uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing. These activities can provide infrastructure that could potentially be used to produce material for nuclear weapons.

The second is the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, which gives inspectors expanded authority to investigate nuclear activities and verify that a country’s nuclear program is not being used to pursue weapons development.

According to the senators, the proposed agreement does not include these two requirements. They argue that allowing Saudi Arabia to proceed without them could weaken international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

The concerns extend beyond Saudi Arabia itself. Merkley and Markey warn that a less restrictive agreement could encourage other countries in the region to reconsider their own commitments to nuclear nonproliferation.

One concern involves the United Arab Emirates, whose existing nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States includes restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing, as well as additional international inspection requirements. The senators argue that a more favorable agreement for Saudi Arabia could put pressure on the UAE to seek changes to its own commitments.

They also point to the potential implications for Iran, arguing that giving Saudi Arabia greater latitude could undermine efforts to negotiate restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

The issue has also raised questions about Saudi Arabia’s future intentions. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has previously said that Saudi Arabia would seek to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran developed them, according to reporting cited in the senators’ announcement.

Reuters reported in October that the proposed agreement had become a point of concern for lawmakers seeking to prevent nuclear proliferation. The administration’s agreement was submitted to Congress in September, beginning the statutory review process.

Under federal law, the agreement can take effect after a 90-day congressional review period unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval. The resolution introduced by Merkley and Markey is intended to give lawmakers a formal opportunity to oppose the deal before that process concludes.

However, introducing the resolution does not itself block the agreement. Congress would need to pass the measure, and any presidential veto would create an additional obstacle to preventing the deal from taking effect.

The senators have also questioned the administration’s handling of the agreement’s documentation. In September, Merkley and Markey led a bipartisan group of senators calling on the Trump administration to release two classified side letters associated with the deal, arguing that lawmakers and the public needed access to the documents to fully assess the agreement’s terms.

Merkley has continued to argue that Congress must exercise its authority before the agreement takes effect, framing the dispute as a national security issue with implications extending beyond U.S.-Saudi relations.

The proposed resolution now provides a route for the Senate to debate the agreement and consider whether to block it. Its outcome could have significant implications for U.S. nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Washington’s efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.