标签： North America

In a sharp break with decades of U.S. diplomatic precedent in the Middle East, the second-term Trump administration has finalized a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that abandons longstanding requirements for the Gulf kingdom to normalize ties with Israel in exchange for access to American nuclear technology. For years, every sitting U.S. president maintained the non-negotiable stance that Saudi civilian nuclear access would be tied directly to progress on Israeli-Saudi normalization. The Trump administration has set that condition aside, granting Saudi Arabia’s long-sought request without extracting reciprocal concessions for Israel – a move that has already drawn fierce criticism from analysts and policymakers who warn it could ignite a regional nuclear arms race.

This nuclear pact marks the latest instance of President Trump discarding the traditional U.S. approach to Middle East diplomacy, which for generations centered on protecting Israeli security and advancing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since returning to office, Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been anchored in his revived “America First” framework, with a primary focus on amplifying U.S. economic influence to counter rising competition from China and other global rivals. Regional analysts argue the agreement sends a clear signal that Washington is prioritizing retaining Gulf alliances in its great power competition, even at the cost of straining relations with long-time ally Israel.

“Countries across the Middle East are determined to develop their domestic nuclear infrastructure, and they will move forward with or without U.S. involvement, and Washington is finally acknowledging that reality,” explained Yusuf Can, a Middle East specialist at global consulting firm Amena Strategies. “Through this deal, the U.S. is essentially telling regional states: you don’t need to partner with China for this development – you can work with us instead,” Can added.

Transactional diplomacy has defined Trump’s second term in global affairs. Since taking office, the administration has ramped up economic and strategic competition with adversaries including China and Russia across multiple regions, from the Arctic to the Middle East. But striking a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia stands out as an especially high-stakes move, one that threatens to further raise tensions in an already volatile region where the U.S. is currently engaged in open conflict with Iran.

For Saudi Arabia and its de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, widely known as MBS, the agreement represents a landmark political victory. MBS has pursued a U.S. nuclear pact for years as a core pillar of his campaign to deepen Saudi Arabia’s integration with Western economies and security alliances. Back in 2018, the crown prince made clear his position: if Iran moves forward to develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will insist on matching that capability.

Full details of the agreement have not yet been released to the public by the Trump administration, but early reporting indicates the pact lacks strict, enforceable nonproliferation measures to prevent Saudi Arabia from converting its civilian nuclear program to a military weapons program down the line. This sets it apart sharply from the 2009 U.S.-United Arab Emirates nuclear cooperation deal, which required rigorous, ongoing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to block proliferation. A second, highly controversial difference is that the new Saudi deal reportedly permits the kingdom to enrich uranium domestically on its own soil – a capability that can be directly repurposed to build nuclear weapons.

Analysts note that even if Saudi Arabia chooses not to accelerate a nuclear weapons program immediately, retaining the technical capability to do so already grants the kingdom a strengthened regional deterrent. “This agreement definitely lays the foundational groundwork for Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons at any point in the future it chooses,” said Imran Bayoumi, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council and former policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Energy sector analysts point to a clear practical benefit for Saudi Arabia: the agreement allows the kingdom to diversify its energy mix and deploy nuclear power to meet rapidly growing domestic electricity demand. Over the long term, nuclear power could reduce Saudi Arabia’s heavy reliance on oil exports, insulating its economy from the extreme price and supply volatility that plagues global oil markets, explained Christopher Russo, an energy expert at consulting firm Charles River Associates.

“Oil supply chains are vulnerable to disruption: oil fields can be targeted in attacks, tankers can be blocked in strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, which we’re seeing firsthand right now,” Russo noted. “Nuclear power infrastructure is far more self-contained and less exposed to these kinds of disruptions.”

Saudi Arabia will not see meaningful economic benefits from the deal for decades. Industry analysts estimate it will take at least 10 years, and likely longer, for the kingdom to complete construction and commission new civilian nuclear power plants. But the short-term political gains are already clear: the deal further solidifies Saudi Arabia’s status as the dominant military and political power in the Gulf region. Most notably, the kingdom secured the agreement without having to recognize Israel, and without abandoning its longheld demand that any future normalization deal with Israel must be tied to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

The Trump administration’s concession on normalization reflects a broader calculation that a breakthrough between Saudi Arabia and Israel is unlikely in the near term. Negotiations over normalization advanced during the Biden administration, but stalled entirely following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza and the subsequent escalation of open war between the U.S.-Israel alliance and Iran.

The administration has not publicly explained its timing for announcing the agreement, nor have officials outlined why it chose to finalize the deal now. But regional analysts widely agree that the ongoing war with Iran played a major role. Since the conflict began, Washington has prioritized mending and strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies that have been targeted by Iranian proxies. Earlier in the war, Saudi Arabia briefly denied the U.S. military access to its airspace, and has repeatedly pushed for de-escalation between Washington and Tehran.

U.S. nuclear technology firms will also benefit from the deal, though those economic gains will also take years to materialize. Saudi Arabia has committed to partnering with U.S. companies to develop its civilian nuclear sector, opening a massive lucrative new market for major U.S. reactor manufacturers such as Westinghouse.

Despite these potential benefits, the agreement has already drawn sharp bipartisan criticism from both Israel and U.S. political leaders. When news of the deal broke Wednesday, multiple Israeli politicians warned that a Saudi civilian nuclear program could evolve into a direct nuclear threat to Israel. Israel is widely understood to possess an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, and joined the U.S. war against Iran over shared concerns about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

“A civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia will trigger a mad nuclear arms race across the entire Middle East,” Avigdor Lieberman, a former Israeli defense minister and current member of the Knesset, wrote in a social media post.

Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. Congress have echoed these concerns. “This deal is a total giveaway to the Saudis, and it will only fuel Iran’s own nuclear ambitions, and it will further destabilize the region alongside Israel,” Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California told the BBC. “This is simply not smart or responsible policy.”

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has pushed back against criticism, arguing the agreement will boost the U.S. economy and strengthen American national security. In a public social media statement, Wright claimed the U.S.-Saudi pact “upholds the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation.”

Still, the Trump administration has fueled public skepticism by refusing to release full details of the agreement. In a notable departure from standard diplomatic practice, President Trump did not preside over the official signing ceremony for the pact. On the day the deal was announced, Trump instead attended a dignified transfer ceremony for four U.S. service members killed in action in Iran, before traveling to Georgia for a campaign rally where he claimed his policies have made the Middle East more stable than at any point in modern history.

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s temporary 10% global tariff is set to expire this Friday, the White House is moving forward with plans to roll out a new slate of import duties targeting dozens of trading partners, top American trade representative Jamieson Greer confirmed Tuesday. This renewed tariff push comes as the Trump administration works to rebuild its core trade policy agenda after a series of major legal setbacks earlier this year that invalidated many of its earlier tariff measures.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a large portion of Trump’s original tariffs, prompting the administration to implement a temporary 10% global import levy to maintain its trade pressure while drafting new policy. That temporary measure will expire at the end of this week. According to trade analysts, the incoming tariffs, framed around allegations that trading partners fail to crack down on forced labor, will replace the expiring temporary levy, with rates set to range between 10% and 12.5%.

The new round of tariffs is expected to cover the majority of U.S. trade volume, Greer confirmed Tuesday, telling CNBC “We expect to see some action soon” when pressed for details on the new measures, though he declined to share a specific timeline for implementation. The European Union has already pushed back against the planned measures, stating publicly that it considers tariffs imposed on forced labor grounds by the U.S. to be completely unjustified.

The Trump administration has already moved to implement new targeted tariffs against key trading partners in recent days. Last week, Washington announced a 25% duty on select Brazilian goods set to take effect Wednesday. While exemptions have been carved out for products the U.S. does not produce domestically, as well as goods including beef, coffee and certain aircraft components, the measure still impacts more than $11 billion in Brazilian exports to the U.S. The Brazilian government has issued a sharp rebuke of the policy, and the American Chamber of Commerce in Brazil has warned that the tariffs place Brazil among the nations facing the most restrictive access conditions to the U.S. market.

On Monday, the administration unveiled a 50% tariff on a wide range of Canadian products, scheduled to go into effect in 30 days. In response, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters in Ottawa Tuesday that his government is currently considering “all options” to respond to the measure, though he added that he and President Trump have agreed to intensify bilateral negotiations over the coming weeks to reach a potential negotiated settlement.

The new 50% Canadian tariff also comes as the U.S. engages in high-stakes renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trilateral trade pact governing North American trade. The Trump administration recently rejected calls to extend the current terms of the agreement, and Greer is scheduled to travel to Mexico for negotiations tied to the joint USMCA review from Wednesday through Friday.

In an additional major trade announcement Tuesday, Trump disclosed a new phased tariff schedule for imported generic pharmaceuticals. Starting in August 2028, a 100% sector-specific tariff will go into effect on imported generic drugs, rising to 200% in 2029. To create a window for drug manufacturers to shift production to the U.S., the president added that the tariff will be set at zero for imports between August 2026 and the start of the 2028 levy. Swiss generic drug giant Sandoz confirmed Wednesday it would continue holding talks with U.S. policymakers to address the impact of the new policy.

Trade experts have warned that the broad new slate of tariffs risks reigniting global trade tensions, with high chances of retaliatory measures from U.S. trading partners that could escalate into a wider trade conflict that disrupts global supply chains and raises costs for American consumers.

For decades, Canada’s dairy supply management framework has stood as one of the most politically untouchable policies in the country, and it has also been a persistent point of friction for former and current U.S. President Donald Trump. Today, the long-contested system is back at the center of a cross-border trade clash after Trump named it one of three key trade irritants justifying a steep 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods bound for U.S. markets, set to take effect this August.

Trump argues that Canada’s system, which imposes binding production quotas, fixed domestic pricing, and strict import caps on dairy, eggs and poultry, creates an uneven playing field that unfairly blocks American producers from accessing the Canadian consumer market. The dispute leaves Canadian policymakers facing an unenviable choice: dig in on the widely popular domestic policy and face costly new U.S. tariffs, or cave to American pressure to open the market, sparking backlash from the voting public and one of the country’s most powerful agricultural lobbies. So far, Canadian officials have drawn a hard line, making clear that any changes to the dairy system are off the table.

Quebec, home to Canada’s largest dairy sector, has led the charge against concessions. Premier Christine Fréchette confirmed earlier this week that supply management remains non-negotiable. Last week, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc emphasized to the BBC that the framework is a foundational pillar of Canada’s rural economy and local farm communities, guaranteeing Canadian consumers consistent access to premium dairy products produced by domestic farmers. Canadian leaders argue the system delivers stable support for family farms and locks in predictable pricing for core food staples that households rely on.

The power of Canada’s dairy lobby is well-documented: when past trade talks have threatened possible concessions, dairy farmers have organized high-profile protests on Parliament Hill, bringing tractors and livestock to demonstrate their opposition. David Clement, Canadian policy director for the international Consumer Choice Center, describes the dairy lobby as the most influential political interest group in the country, with deep ties across all major national political parties.

Canada’s supply management system was first launched in the early 1970s, and it has outlasted similar policies that were phased out by other Commonwealth nations including Australia and New Zealand. Under the current framework, individual dairy farmers hold fixed production quotas that cap how much milk they can bring to market. Provincial marketing boards set regulated prices, delivering a predictable steady income for farmers while ensuring a consistent domestic supply of dairy products. Only a small volume of foreign dairy is allowed to enter Canada duty-free or at low tariff rates within these set quotas; any imports exceeding the cap face steep levies ranging from 200% to nearly 300%, pricing most excess foreign goods out of the Canadian market entirely.

According to 2025 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), American dairy producers currently hold tariff-free access to just 3.5% of Canada’s dairy market, even as Canada ranks among the top importers of U.S. dairy, purchasing $1.3 billion worth of American dairy products last year. For American producers, expanded access to Canada’s market has become an increasingly urgent priority: the U.S. is currently facing a record high national dairy output that outpaces domestic consumption, leaving producers looking to expand into new export markets, including Canada’s 40 million consumers.

A White House policy order released Monday adds another layer to the dispute, arguing that Canada’s free trade agreement with the European Union grants European cheese producers easier access to Canadian markets than their American counterparts, amounting to unlawful discrimination against U.S. producers. Trump is far from the first U.S. leader to take issue with Canada’s policy: the prior Biden administration launched two formal challenges to Canada’s dairy quota rules under the USMCA, the current North American free trade agreement that frames bilateral trade talks between the two nations. In 2024, the United Kingdom walked away from bilateral trade talks with Canada over disputes regarding tariff-free access for British cheese producers. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also repeatedly criticized the policy, arguing it creates harmful distortions in global dairy production and trade.

Even within Canada, a small but vocal contingent of economists, journalists and policy analysts has called for the full dismantling or major reform of the system. In a column published earlier this month ahead of Trump’s latest tariff announcement, Calgary-based writer and journalist Jen Gerson called for Canada to scrap supply management entirely, branding it an outdated anachronism that drives up food costs for Canadian households. Last year, Clement of the Consumer Choice Center wrote that the Trump administration’s claim that American farmers face unfair treatment in Canada has merit. He argues that supply management artificially inflates the price of core household staples including dairy and eggs — a particularly pressing issue amid Canada’s ongoing cost of living crisis. “We should get rid of supply management for our own good, outside of any negotiations and trade deals,” Clement told the BBC in an interview. He argues eliminating the policy would cut grocery costs for Canadian consumers, expand product choice at retail stores, and help Canada diversify its trade relationships by opening its market to global producers.

Recent pricing data backs up claims of higher dairy costs in Canada: Statistics Canada and USDA data shows the average Canadian paid C$3.19 ($2.26) for a liter of milk in May, while the average American paid just C$1.95 for the same volume. Despite these price gaps, supporters of the current system remain in the overwhelming majority. Public opinion polling shows roughly 77% of Canadian voters support retaining supply management, with most respondents saying they prioritize protecting domestic farmers and guaranteeing access to high-quality Canadian-made dairy. In reader comments to Canada’s Globe and Mail this June, many local consumers echoed that sentiment. “I don’t want cheap American milk products,” wrote Ontario resident Gary Johnson. “Let the United States send dairy products. I don’t think any of us will buy it,” added Mark Knudsen of Mississauga.

David Wiens, a third-generation dairy farmer from Manitoba and president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, argues the framework delivers tangible benefits that justify its existence, including steady consumer pricing and protection of Canadian food sovereignty. “Dairy prices are actually more stable than many other food categories, and more competitive internationally than people often realise,” Wiens told the BBC, noting that dairy prices are shaped by a wide range of economic factors beyond supply management. He pointed to the 2020s bird flu outbreak that sent egg prices skyrocketing for U.S. consumers as an example of how unregulated systems can face extreme volatility, arguing that Canada’s supply management framework shielded domestic consumers from similar sudden price spikes.

Critics of supply management argue that widespread public support stems in large part from a lack of public understanding of the complex policy, and that the political risks of pushing reform have become too high for most elected officials to touch. Ryan Cardwell, a professor at the University of Manitoba who has studied the political dynamics of supply management, says any major change would likely cost the governing Liberal Party multiple parliamentary seats, particularly in rural and Quebec ridings. There is also a massive upfront cost to any transition: the federal government would be required to pay billions in compensation to dairy farmers for their acquired quota rights, a price tag that no federal government has been willing to take on. “It would be an upfront cost, and of course governments hate that,” Cardwell noted.

Other countries that have eliminated supply management have taken different transitional approaches: Australia used a temporary consumer milk levy to fund compensation for farmers during its phase-out, while the European Union gradually increased production quotas by 1% annually before abolishing the system entirely in 2015. Despite growing international pressure, Cardwell says Canada’s system is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, noting that broad public support and powerful lobbying make any major overhaul politically unfeasible for current Canadian leaders.

A proposed nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia has emerged as a landmark development in international diplomatic and energy circles, drawing widespread global attention for its far-reaching geopolitical and strategic consequences. BBC correspondent Sarah Smith has delivered a detailed breakdown of what is currently known about the agreement, unpacking its complex implications for both regional dynamics and global non-proliferation efforts.

The framework of cooperation, which has been months in the making, centers on enabling Saudi Arabia to develop its civilian nuclear energy sector, with support from US companies and diplomatic backing from the White House. Unlike military nuclear programs that focus on weapons development, this deal is structured around peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including power generation, medical research, and water desalination – critical needs for a desert nation like Saudi Arabia that is seeking to diversify its energy mix away from fossil fuels.

Yet the agreement has sparked significant debate around the world. One of the core points of contention is Saudi Arabia’s refusal so far to commit to the strictest international non-proliferation standards, specifically the Comprehensive Safeguards Additional Protocol that allows for more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Critics warn that without this commitment, there is a risk that technology transferred for civilian use could eventually be diverted to develop a nuclear weapons program, which would upend the fragile security balance in the already volatile Middle East.

For the United States, the deal carries major strategic goals. It aims to strengthen the decades-long security alliance between Washington and Riyadh, counter growing Iranian influence in the region, and open up billions of dollars in commercial opportunities for American nuclear technology firms. It also aligns with Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030 reform agenda, which seeks to modernize the kingdom’s economy and infrastructure ahead of a post-oil future.

Sarah Smith’s analysis outlines that while the agreement is being framed as a landmark step in bilateral relations, it still faces significant hurdles. It must win approval from the US Congress, where many lawmakers from both major parties have raised concerns about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and nuclear proliferation risks. Additionally, regional powers including Iran have already voiced strong opposition, arguing that the deal would create a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

As negotiations continue to finalize the details of the agreement, global powers and non-proliferation watchdogs are closely monitoring every development, acutely aware that the outcome will shape regional security and global non-proliferation efforts for decades to come.