A New Chapter in U.S.-Saudi Relations: Major Business Deals from MBS's Washington Visit
By Leon Hadar
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's return to Washington after seven years marked more than just a diplomatic milestone—it signaled a fundamental recalibration of U.S.-Saudi relations around economic pragmatism and strategic necessity. The visit, which culminated in nearly $1 trillion in investment commitments and hundreds of bilateral agreements, reveals both the opportunities and tensions inherent in this evolving partnership.
The Scale of the Commitments
The headline figure is staggering. Saudi Arabia increased its investment pledge from $600 billion (announced during Trump's May visit to Riyadh) to nearly $1 trillion over the coming years. At the November 19 investment forum at Washington's Kennedy Center, leaders announced $270 billion in immediate agreements between dozens of companies across sectors including artificial intelligence, defense, energy, critical minerals, and financial services.
Yet these numbers warrant scrutiny. Many of these commitments take the form of non-binding memoranda of understanding rather than finalized contracts. Given Saudi Arabia's already strained finances—with Vision 2030 megaprojects running over budget and scaled back—the feasibility of delivering on such massive investment promises remains an open question. The kingdom's ambitious domestic agenda, including preparation for hosting the 2034 World Cup, competes for the same capital now pledged to American ventures.
Technology as the New Foundation
Perhaps most significant is the pivot from oil to technology as the cornerstone of U.S.-Saudi relations. The agreements on artificial intelligence cooperation represent a strategic shift for both nations. Saudi Arabia secured access to 600,000 advanced Nvidia AI chips through the government-backed firm HUMAIN, alongside commitments for major data center development including a 500-megawatt joint venture with Elon Musk's xAI company.
This technology focus serves multiple purposes. For Saudi Arabia, it advances the kingdom's ambition to position itself as an AI hub leveraging its abundant land, energy resources, and strategic geographic location. For the United States, it represents an effort to counter China's dominance in critical technologies while creating a Gulf alternative to Chinese partnerships.
The critical minerals framework signed during the visit further illustrates this strategy. With one study suggesting the West will still depend on China for 90 percent of heavy rare earth minerals past 2030, the U.S.-Saudi agreement to develop processing capabilities—including MP Materials' planned refinery in Saudi Arabia—aims to diversify supply chains away from Beijing's control.
The Nuclear Question and Regional Security
The civil nuclear cooperation agreement may prove the most consequential and controversial outcome. While the White House emphasized strong nonproliferation standards, the elephant in the room is uranium enrichment. Saudi Arabia possesses substantial uranium deposits and has been reluctant to forgo domestic enrichment rights—a capability that could theoretically enable weapons development if pursued to high purity levels.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the agreement doesn't include domestic enrichment, but the framework leaves room for future negotiations. This ambiguity reflects the delicate balance the Trump administration is attempting: providing Saudi Arabia with sufficient incentives to remain a U.S. partner while managing nonproliferation concerns and Israeli anxieties about regional nuclear capabilities.
The defense dimension extends beyond nuclear cooperation. Saudi Arabia received designation as a major non-NATO ally and secured approval for F-35 fighter jet purchases—notably without the performance downgrades typically required to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge. The strategic defense agreement also secures new burden-sharing funds from Saudi Arabia to offset U.S. costs, though details remain classified.
These security guarantees matter deeply to Riyadh following recent regional upheaval, including Israeli attacks on Qatar and broader instability. Yet they fall short of the NATO Article 5-style mutual defense treaty that Saudi Arabia reportedly seeks, leaving room for continued Saudi hedging through relationships with China, Russia, and Pakistan.
The Transactional Nature and Conflict of Interest Questions
The visit laid bare the deeply transactional character of the Trump administration's approach to foreign policy. Trump openly praised MBS in superlative terms, dismissing questions about Jamal Khashoggi's 2018 murder with the comment that "things happen" and insisting the crown prince "knew nothing about it"—directly contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments.
This stance has drawn criticism, but it reflects Trump's prioritization of economic and strategic benefits over human rights concerns. The president's family business interests in the Gulf, including recent announcements of Trump-branded developments in Saudi Arabia and a new hotel partnership in the Maldives, raise legitimate questions about conflicts of interest, though Trump claims separation from family business operations.
More broadly, the blurred line between public diplomacy and private business dealings—with Gulf investments flowing into Trump family ventures in crypto, real estate, and other sectors—represents a departure from traditional American foreign policy norms. Whether this approach ultimately serves U.S. interests or compromises them remains hotly debated.
Winners and Losers
The immediate winners are clear. Saudi Arabia gains access to advanced military hardware, AI technology, and nuclear cooperation that advances its Vision 2030 transformation while securing enhanced (if not ironclad) security commitments. The Trump administration can tout massive investment figures and present itself as restoring American strength and dealmaking prowess.
U.S. technology and defense companies—including Nvidia, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, and dozens of others—stand to benefit from billions in contracts. American jobs in high-tech manufacturing, defense, and infrastructure development may follow, though the actual employment impact depends on how investments materialize.
The potential losers include advocates for human rights accountability, who see MBS's rehabilitation as a victory of realpolitik over justice for Khashoggi's murder. Israel faces a more complex calculation: while the Abraham Accords remain out of reach without Palestinian statehood progress, the kingdom's growing military capabilities and regional influence could shift Middle Eastern power dynamics in ways that complicate Israeli security planning.
Perhaps most significantly, China emerges as the implicit target and potential loser if U.S.-Saudi cooperation successfully creates alternative supply chains for critical technologies and minerals. However, Beijing's established advantages in rare earth processing and manufacturing will be difficult to overcome, even with major Gulf investments.
The Path Forward
Several factors will determine whether this recalibration succeeds. First, implementation matters more than announcements. Many previous Trump-era deals with Gulf states were later revealed as aspirational rather than binding. Translating memoranda of understanding into actual capital flows and operational projects remains the critical test.
Second, regional stability will shape outcomes. Trump agreed to address the Sudan conflict at MBS's urging, recognizing that instability undermines investment and development. Whether the administration can broker meaningful progress on Sudan, maintain the fragile Gaza ceasefire, or manage tensions with Iran will significantly impact the partnership's viability.
Third, domestic political reactions in both countries matter. In the United States, critics across the political spectrum have raised concerns about giving advanced military technology to Saudi Arabia, the nonproliferation implications of nuclear cooperation, and the appearance of trading American values for business deals. In Saudi Arabia, the massive outflow of capital to U.S. projects competes with pressing domestic needs and the crown prince's own ambitious agenda.
Conclusion
The business deals resulting from MBS's Washington visit represent a bet by both leaders that transactional partnerships can deliver mutual benefits sufficient to override traditional constraints like human rights concerns, nonproliferation principles, and alliance commitments to other regional actors.
This approach may prove pragmatically effective in securing near-term economic and strategic gains. American companies will benefit from Gulf capital, while Saudi Arabia accelerates its technological development and diversification beyond oil. The partnership offers both nations a counterweight to Chinese influence in critical sectors.
Yet the foundation remains uncertain. Built on personal relationships between leaders, financial incentives, and situational alignment rather than shared values or formal treaty obligations, this partnership could prove as volatile as the region itself. The true measure of success will come not in the signing ceremonies and investment announcements, but in whether these deals deliver sustainable economic transformation for Saudi Arabia, meaningful benefits for American workers, and greater regional stability—or whether they prove to be another chapter in the long history of oversold Middle Eastern ventures that ultimately disappoint all parties involved.
The world will be watching to see which scenario unfolds.