Two Democratic senators are forcing a showdown over President Trump’s nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia, introducing a joint resolution of disapproval on Thursday that would halt the deal. Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts filed the measure, which is guaranteed a vote after Nov. 29 under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act.
The lawmakers argue the pact, which would let American firms build out Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear infrastructure over three decades, contains insufficient protections to prevent Riyadh from diverting U.S. technology toward a weapons program. They point specifically to the absence of strict limits on uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing—the two pathways to a bomb.
“It is essential that nations pursuing civilian energy programs agree to the ‘gold standard’ of restrictions on fuel reprocessing and enrichment and rigorous inspections to ensure that a nuclear energy program doesn’t become a covert nuclear weapons program,” Merkley said in a statement.
Trump signed the agreement with the Saudi government in late July. It does not require congressional approval to take effect, but a 90-day review window gives lawmakers an opportunity to try to kill it. House Democrats have introduced an identical resolution, though both face long odds. In the Senate, the measure would need 60 votes to advance, and even if it cleared Congress, Trump would almost certainly veto it.
The deal has been shadowed by Trump’s insistence that Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords, the normalization pact he brokered in 2020. That condition is not written into the agreement signed by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman. Wright told reporters at the time that talks over the Accords would “be worked in parallel” with the nuclear deal’s implementation.
While Republican senators have generally backed the agreement, some have signaled they want more detail about nonproliferation safeguards. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida called Saudi participation in the Abraham Accords “a real positive” but added, “I don’t know enough detail about the limitations of their usage. I want to understand that better.”
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the Abraham Accords component was reassuring and that the deal largely tracks what other nations are permitted to do. Still, he noted the distinction between civilian energy and weapons capability. “There’s a lot of countries around the world that have civilian nuclear energy capacity who are subject to inspections by the IAEA and transparency, and they don’t necessarily enrich, which is the path to a nuclear weapon,” Cornyn said. “What I’ve learned about it so far doesn’t cause me concern.”
The Democratic push comes as the party seeks to sharpen its oversight of Trump’s foreign policy, a dynamic that has also played out in recent debates over GOP senators turning on Trump’s Russian diesel import plan and GOP senators blasting Trump’s Russian diesel deal. With the Senate map tightly contested, the Saudi resolution could also become a messaging vote, forcing Republicans to go on record on nuclear proliferation—a perennial concern in the Middle East, where Russia’s Kaliningrad nuclear threat targets Lithuania has heightened anxiety about atomic weapons.
For now, the resolution’s path is steep. Even if it passes both chambers, overriding a presidential veto would require two-thirds majorities—an unlikely prospect given broad Republican support for the deal. But the vote will provide a clear test of where senators stand on one of the most consequential nuclear agreements in years.
