A Palm Desert resident is raising pointed questions about the Trump administration’s decision to allow the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear program, arguing that American investment would be better spent modernizing nuclear infrastructure right here at home. Charlie Henry, writing in a letter to the editor published by the Los Angeles Times, called the agreement dubious and warned that it surrenders a critical piece of leverage the United States held to encourage normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The deal, reported in July, also risks undermining longstanding U.S. nonproliferation policy in the Middle East, Henry wrote.
Henry acknowledged that America needs Saudi cooperation to contain Iran but noted that security ties between the two nations were already mutually beneficial before this agreement was struck. Handing over such a significant concession to even a strategic partner without a clear framework for oversight seems unwise, he argued. The letter points out that the administration gave away considerable leverage without securing tangible commitments in return.
What troubles Henry most is the question of priorities. He wrote that he cannot understand why American financing should back nuclear energy expansion on the other side of the world when the United States itself desperately needs to build up its own domestic nuclear capabilities. With major fossil fuel projects remaining politically divisive and many renewable energy sources still too expensive or unreliable to stand on their own without heavy government subsidies, Henry sees nuclear power as the clean and dependable energy source the country needs now more than ever.
Henry called for an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy, starting with a serious effort to modernize how the United States handles nuclear power at home rather than exporting that investment abroad.