President Trump has endorsed a 30-year civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. Notably, this deal lacks the longstanding ‘gold standard’ prohibition that prevents U.S. allies from uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing. These activities are known pathways to developing nuclear weapons.
This decision highlights a significant contradiction. The U.S. administration has actively challenged Iran’s nuclear program. Now, the same administration appears to support Saudi Arabia’s pathway to similar capabilities. Lawmakers have voiced concerns. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and others urge the administration to maintain the non-proliferation stance. Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) questions how the administration can prevent nuclear proliferation in some countries while enabling it in others for financial gain.
The timing of this deal is crucial. It coincides with a period when global nuclear restraint is diminishing. Recently, the New START treaty, the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia, expired. This treaty provided legally binding limitations on the largest nuclear arsenals globally. It also established inspections and data exchanges to reduce the chances of catastrophic errors. Despite its significance, the treaty’s verification mechanisms had weakened in its latter years.
The absence of New START leaves the U.S. and Russia without binding strategic force limitations for the first time in over 50 years. Additionally, the recent review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ended without agreement on a final document. At a time when functioning arms control agreements are crucial, the U.S. is supporting another nation’s nuclear program.
This move faces criticism for its recklessness. It also raises questions about the role of arms control advocacy groups. Some organizations like the Arms Control Association, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Federation of American Scientists are involved in practical risk reduction activities. Conversely, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons promotes the appealing Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Despite being signed by 95 countries, none of the nine nuclear-armed nations has agreed to it.
The current global scenario is alarmingly uncertain. The U.S. and Russia are entangled in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel have direct confrontations with Iran. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan experienced heightened confrontation last year. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal and pressuring Taiwan. North Korea continues to advance its nuclear ambitions. Launching a new nuclear-capable state in such a volatile region is concerning.
Re-establishing binding arms control agreements is imperative. Yet, efforts remain focused on the challenging goal of total disarmament. As a physician, I observe that organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility have pursued abolition instead of practical goals. Doctors are uniquely positioned to explain the effects of nuclear weapon deployment and the challenges of addressing its aftermath.
We must focus on achievable objectives. These include reinstating verifiable limitations on U.S. and Russian arsenals, rebuilding inspections and transparency, sustaining the global nuclear test ban, enhancing military communication, and keeping artificial intelligence away from nuclear decisions. Additionally, progress towards engaging China in these discussions is essential. While these measures do not ensure a nuclear-free world, they offer a safer environment for all.
Irwin Redlener, a pediatrician, serves as a senior adviser to the Institute for Global Policy at Columbia University and the Arms Control Association. He was the founding director of Columbia’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.