Republican senator joins criticism of Trump Saudi nuclear deal

Republican Senator John Kennedy said he was not comfortable with the Trump administration‘s newly announced civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia, offering rare public skepticism from within the president’s own party as lawmakers prepare to review the deal.

Kennedy’s comments came days after President Donald Trump announced the agreement and then added a new requirement that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel before it can proceed—a condition that has already drawn criticism from Democrats and raised questions about whether the deal can survive congressional scrutiny.

Newsweek reached out to the Trump administration for comment on Sunday.

Why Kennedy Opposes the Deal

Asked on CBS News’ Face the Nation whether he was comfortable with the agreement, Kennedy responded bluntly: “No. Maybe someday, but not right now.”

The Louisiana Republican argued that pursuing a Saudi nuclear agreement while the United States remains at war with Iran sends a contradictory message.

“We’re bombing a country to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon, but we’re signing a deal with another country,” he said. “I know it’s a commercial agreement, but that the world perceives as possibly someday leading to a nuclear weapon.”

Kennedy repeatedly emphasized that his concern was not necessarily the concept of civilian nuclear cooperation itself but the timing.

“The world’s on a hair trigger,” he said, arguing that countries around the world are increasingly focused on nuclear deterrence amid instability in the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere.

The remarks are notable because Kennedy has generally supported Trump’s foreign policy and used the same interview to defend the administration’s broader approach toward Iran. He also rejected calls from some critics to simply end U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Instead, Kennedy argued that the administration should continue pressuring Iran through sanctions and military measures while avoiding a larger ground war.

Kennedy’s criticism differs from much of the opposition coming from Democrats because it focuses on the timing of the agreement rather than the administration’s handling of it.

What the Deal Would Do

The agreement announced last week would establish the framework for civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia. It must still undergo congressional review before taking effect.

The Trump administration has argued that the deal would strengthen strategic ties with one of Washington’s most important Middle East partners while creating opportunities for American companies in Saudi Arabia’s planned nuclear energy sector.

Supporters say U.S. participation would also give Washington greater influence over how the kingdom develops its nuclear capabilities.

The proposal has long divided policymakers because of concerns that a Saudi nuclear program could eventually shorten the kingdom’s path to a nuclear weapon. Those concerns have often been linked to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s previous pledge that Saudi Arabia would seek a bomb if Iran obtained one.

That history has placed the agreement under heightened scrutiny in Washington.

Trump’s New Israel Requirement

The political debate intensified after Trump added a major new condition to the agreement less than 24 hours after it was unveiled.

The president said the arrangement would only move forward if Saudi Arabia joins the Abraham Accords and formally normalizes relations with Israel.

The requirement immediately raised questions about whether the agreement can move forward, given Saudi Arabia’s longstanding position on relations with Israel.

Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that normalization with Israel would require meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood. While Riyadh has engaged in discussions over closer ties with Israel in recent years, officials have repeatedly tied any breakthrough to the Palestinian issue.

Kennedy expressed skepticism that the condition can realistically be met.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen anyway because the president’s conditioned it on Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel, and they’re not going to do that,” he said.

His comments suggest that even some Republicans expect the new requirement to become a major obstacle.

Van Hollen’s Criticism Takes Different Approach

While Kennedy questioned the timing and strategic logic of the agreement, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen attacked the administration’s handling of the negotiations themselves.

Appearing Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Van Hollen said the White House changed the terms after the agreement had already been announced.

“The Trump administration, after getting the Saudis to sign it, turned around and said, well, we’re not going to follow through unless you normalize relations with Israel,” Van Hollen said.

The Maryland Democrat described the move as a “bait-and-switch scheme” and argued it sent the wrong message to an important U.S. partner.

Van Hollen said the administration introduced a major new political condition after the agreement was announced, creating what he described as “complete whiplash” for Saudi Arabia.

His argument differs significantly from Kennedy’s.

Van Hollen is not primarily questioning whether Saudi Arabia should receive civilian nuclear assistance. Instead, he is questioning Trump’s decision to alter the political framework surrounding the agreement after it was announced.

Why Congress Could Become a Problem

The dual criticism highlights a challenge facing the administration as the agreement heads toward congressional review.

Kennedy focused his criticism on the timing of the agreement and the risk of advancing a nuclear arrangement while the United States remains at war with Iran.

Van Hollen, by contrast, focused on Trump’s decision to add new conditions after the deal had already been announced. In other words, the administration is facing objections from opposite directions.

The situation is particularly noteworthy because Kennedy remains a strong supporter of Trump’s broader Iran strategy. His comments cannot easily be dismissed as opposition to the administration’s overall foreign policy.

At the same time, Democrats appear poised to continue pressing the White House over the decision to connect the agreement to Saudi-Israeli normalization after the fact.

What Happens Next

The agreement still must undergo congressional review, where lawmakers are expected to examine both its nonproliferation safeguards and its broader strategic implications.

The administration argues the deal would strengthen a critical partnership and expand American influence in the Middle East.

But the debate that emerged this weekend suggests lawmakers may focus on a different question: why the United States is pursuing a major civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia at a moment when nuclear proliferation concerns are central to the conflict with Iran.

For now, the deal faces an unusual political reality. Democrats are criticizing how it was negotiated, while at least one prominent Republican is questioning whether this is the right time to pursue it at all. That combination could make what was intended as a foreign-policy achievement a much tougher sell on Capitol Hill.