The Trump administration has yet to formally notify Congress of its nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, but Democrats are already laying the groundwork for an attempt to block it.
The civil nuclear pact, announced Wednesday, is designed to strengthen US-Saudi relations as President Donald Trump seeks an end to the Iran war plus funnel billions of dollars to the US nuclear industry.
But lawmakers in both parties will have questions about the details, especially the deal’s anticipated lack of additional nuclear oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Once the Energy Department transmits the deal to Congress as promised, the Atomic Energy Act gives lawmakers 90 legislative days to adopt a joint resolution disapproving of the agreement or let it automatically take effect. Democrats on relevant House and Senate committees told Semafor they’re already approaching the Saudi deal with a high degree of skepticism — citing, among other issues, the Trump administration’s escalating Iran war.
“I’m very concerned” over the deal, Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., his party’s top House Foreign Affairs Committee member, told Semafor. He added that “the timing seems funny,” and that the nuclear pact “seems as though it might be something that the Trump administration is doing to pay the Saudis to do something in the region.”
Democrats, still in the congressional minority, have dim prospects at winning passage of any disapproval resolution. Their level of pushback against the nuclear deal, however, could create a new and unwelcome political headache for Republicans who are fighting to preserve their majorities this fall amid the spiking unpopularity of Trump’s Iran war.
Any Senate vote to overturn the deal would be at a simple majority, meaning that Trump would only have to keep most of his party in line and, at worst case, survive a veto override. That’s likely: Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said he initially had questions about the deal but after reviewing it is not “uncomfortable” with it.
Meeks’ Senate counterpart, Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, told Semafor she believes the deal is “going to have to come before the Senate.”
Another Foreign Relations Democrat, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, said he’s “pretty nervous” that the Saudi pact doesn’t meet the so-called gold standard set by the US’ nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates.
That agreement allowed for IAEA oversight of the UAE’s civil nuclear activity, a provision not expected to be part of the new US-Saudi deal.
“If it’s set up the way I think,” Kaine added, he expects that the lack of added IAEA safeguards “will probably lead to some kind of vote about this.”
“These civilian nuclear deals have to comply with the toughest nuclear nonproliferation standards … to avoid the risk of any country obtaining a nuclear weapon,” agreed Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., another Foreign Relations member.
Van Hollen pointed to GOP opposition to his proposal to prohibit the Export-Import Bank from helping to fund any nuclear agreement that did not meet the highest possible standards: “That was not a good signal, because it suggested that they’d be willing to support an agreement without adequate safeguards.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Semafor that the Saudi nuclear pact “has the potential to greatly destabilize the region” and put any durable nuclear truce with Iran further out of the administration’s reach.
Democratic centrists aligned with Israel are poised to criticize the deal for a separate reason: The Trump administration chose not to make normalized ties to Israel a requirement for any Saudi nuclear pact.
That decision was “a major strategic mistake,” Brian Romick, president and CEO of the group Democratic Majority for Israel, said in a statement. “This deal is also likely to be counterproductive to the administration’s pursuit of an agreement with Iran to curtail its own nuclear program.”