Last updated 6 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
On November 18, 2025, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrived in Washington, D.C. for his first official visit to the American capital since March 2018. The seven-year gap between visits was defined by a single event: the assassination and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.
For nearly a decade, this murder functioned as a diplomatic barrier, making the Crown Prince unwelcome in Western capitals. President Joe Biden vowed early in his tenure to reduce the Kingdom to “pariah” status.
The summit hosted by President Donald Trump—now in the first year of his second term—marked the definitive end of this estrangement. Trump welcomed the Crown Prince not as a pariah but as “a very good friend” and a “phenomenal” leader. The visit featured a military flyover of F-35 jets, hardware previously denied to Riyadh due to Israeli security concerns, and the announcement of an investment pledge totaling “almost $1 trillion.”
Central to this diplomatic reset was the explicit erasure of the Khashoggi affair. When pressed by journalists in the Oval Office, Trump minimized the murder with the phrase “things happen,” questioned Khashoggi’s character as “extremely controversial,” and attacked the American press for raising the subject.
This analysis examines the strategic rationale behind this approach, the economic feasibility of the $1 trillion pledge, the security implications of the F-35 sale and “Major Non-NATO Ally” designation, and the risks of normalizing transnational repression.
Strategic Context
Three factors converged to make the rehabilitation of MBS a strategic priority for the Trump administration: the aftermath of the 12-Day War, the U.S.-China tech competition, and Middle East energy security.
The 12-Day War
The strategic backdrop was dominated by the “12-Day War” of June 2025, a high-intensity conflict involving Israel, the United States, and Iran. This conflict, while short, shattered the fragile deterrence architecture of the Middle East and exposed vulnerabilities of U.S. partners in the Gulf. The war demonstrated Iran’s capability to threaten regional energy infrastructure and transit routes.
For the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia emerged as the indispensable anchor of regional security. The logic of “maximum pressure” on Tehran required a unified front. A Saudi Arabia drifting toward neutrality, or worse, détente with Iran under Chinese mediation, was viewed as an unacceptable strategic risk.
The designation of Saudi Arabia as a “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA) during the visit was a signal to Tehran that the Kingdom was closer to receiving formal protection as an ally to the U.S.
The Qatar Precedent
The Crown Prince’s negotiation leverage was strengthened by U.S. actions earlier in the year. In September 2025, following an Israeli attack on Hamas negotiators in Doha that threatened to collapse ceasefire talks, Trump issued an executive order providing a security guarantee to Qatar.
Riyadh viewed this “Qatar model” as a baseline. Saudi officials argued that if Qatar, a state with complex ties to Hamas and Iran, could receive such a guarantee, then Saudi Arabia deserved equal or superior status. The Trump administration, having established this precedent, found itself strategically cornered. Refusing Riyadh would have signaled a downgrade in the relationship relative to Doha.
The downplaying of Khashoggi became the political lubricant necessary to facilitate a “Qatar-plus” security arrangement for Saudi Arabia.
The China Factor
Beyond the Middle East, the summit was framed by U.S.-China competition. By 2025, Beijing had made significant inroads into the Gulf, acting as mediator between Saudi Arabia and Iran and becoming the primary purchaser of Saudi crude. More concerning for Washington, China had begun offering advanced technology, including AI surveillance systems and ballistic missile technology, to Gulf states frustrated by U.S. export controls.
The Trump administration viewed the MBS visit as a critical opportunity to arrest Saudi drift toward China’s orbit. The administration calculated that human rights conditionality, specifically the focus on Khashoggi, was the primary wedge driving Riyadh toward Beijing. By removing this wedge, Trump sought to lock Saudi Arabia into the U.S. sphere of influence for the next generation, specifically through integrating Saudi capital into U.S. defense and technology industrial bases.
The $1 Trillion Investment Pledge
If the security context provided the strategic need for rehabilitation, the economic package provided the political justification. Trump, operating under a transactional “America First” doctrine, aggressively touted the economic benefits as a refutation of moral critiques.
How the Number Emerged
During the Oval Office meeting, a choreographed exchange took place regarding the scale of Saudi investment. Trump initially thanked the Crown Prince for a $600 billion commitment, only to publicly pressure him to increase it. “I’m going to have to work on him,” Trump joked, to which MBS responded that the figure would be “almost $1 trillion.”
This figure serves multiple political functions. It allows Trump to present the “rehabilitation” not as a concession to a dictator, but as a victory for American workers. “That means investments in plants, in companies, money on Wall Street… what really counts is jobs,” Trump declared.
Major Economic Agreements
| Sector | Key Partners | Estimated Value / Scope | Strategic Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence | Humain (PIF), Global AI, Nvidia, AMD, Cisco | Up to 1 GW capacity by 2030; 600,000 Nvidia chips | Establishes Saudi Arabia as U.S.-aligned AI computing hub; sidelines Chinese tech |
| Defense | Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics | F-35 acquisition (48 jets); 300 Abrams tanks | Deepens interoperability; sustains U.S. defense industrial base jobs |
| Critical Minerals | MP Materials, Dept. of Defense | 49% equity in Saudi rare earth refinery | Diversifies supply chain away from China; secures materials for EVs/chips |
| Semiconductors | Various U.S. Tech Firms | $50 billion short-term spend | Massive liquidity injection for U.S. chipmakers facing cyclical downturns |
| Civil Nuclear | Westinghouse (implied) | Multi-billion dollar reactors; no enrichment | Revitalizes U.S. nuclear export industry; maintains non-proliferation standards |
The Credibility Gap
While the $1 trillion figure is politically potent, economic analysts maintain deep skepticism about its feasibility. The track record of Saudi investment pledges suggests a significant gap between announcements and actual capital deployment.
Analysts from the Arab Gulf States Institute pointed to the precedent of the 2017 Riyadh summit, where a heralded $450 billion investment package resulted in actual exports of only roughly $92 billion between 2017 and 2020, less than 25% of the promised total. Similarly, the 2017 defense agreement, valued at $110 billion, resulted in formal notifications to Congress of only $23 billion over the subsequent three years.
This “announcement-to-execution gap” raises the possibility that the $1 trillion figure is a rhetorical device used to justify the political cost of normalizing relations with MBS, rather than a binding economic reality. Critics argue the sheer size of the pledge, exceeding the GDP of many G20 nations, renders it implausible without counting vague, non-binding Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and long-term projections that depend on fluctuating oil prices.
AI Infrastructure Risks
A specific area of concern highlighted by industry experts is the massive investment in AI data centers. The pledge to build gigawatts of AI infrastructure assumes insatiable, linear growth in demand for computing power. However, economists warn that the AI sector may be forming a bubble.
“You’d need approximately $1 trillion in revenue to hit breakeven,” noted one analyst regarding the massive capital expenditure required for such infrastructure. If the AI hype cycle cools, or if “scaling laws” for Large Language Models hit diminishing returns, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia could be left with massive, energy-intensive “white elephants.”
This risk is exacerbated by reliance on debt and foreign capital to fuel the buildout, potentially exposing the U.S. tech sector to systemic risks if the Saudi funding stream dries up due to an oil market crash.
Rewriting the Past
The summit was a stage-managed exercise in historical revisionism. The Trump administration and Saudi delegation worked in tandem to rewrite the narratives of two defining traumas: the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Khashoggi Erasure
The downplaying of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder was explicit and aggressive. In the Oval Office, Trump deployed a rhetorical strategy of minimization and deflection.
By stating “things happen,” Trump reduced a state-sponsored assassination to a passive, unfortunate occurrence. By labeling Khashoggi “extremely controversial” and noting “a lot of people didn’t like him,” Trump sought to strip the victim of his status as a martyr for free speech.
Trump directly contradicted the 2021 assessment of his own intelligence community (ODNI), which concluded MBS approved the operation. “He knew nothing about it,” Trump asserted, signaling the executive branch would no longer accept the CIA’s findings as the baseline for policy.
This approach served a clear strategic function: it removed the “moral tax” on doing business with Riyadh. By treating the murder as a settled, if regrettable, historic footnote, Trump signaled to the U.S. corporate sector that the “reputational risk” of engaging with PIF was officially lifted.
The 9/11 Revisionism
Perhaps more controversial was the handling of the 9/11 legacy. With families of victims protesting outside the White House, the Crown Prince used the platform to offer a counter-narrative: that Osama bin Laden used Saudi nationals in the attacks specifically to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the Kingdom.
“Reality based in CIA documents… is that Osama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose, is to destroy this relation,” MBS argued. Trump implicitly endorsed this view by hosting the Prince and attacking American reporters who raised the issue.
This revisionism sparked outrage among groups like 9/11 Families United. Terry Strada, the National Chair, stated: “The President may want us to ‘move on,’ but there is no chance of that happening until the Saudis cease their decades-long lies.” Brett Eagleson of 9/11 Justice emphasized that recent federal court rulings had found “credible evidence” of Saudi government support for the hijackers.
Attacking the Press
The rehabilitation strategy involved a direct assault on the press corps. When ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce questioned the Crown Prince about 9/11 and Khashoggi, Trump intervened to berate her. “You don’t have to embarrass our guest… I think you are a terrible reporter,” Trump lashed out, later suggesting that ABC’s broadcast license should be revoked.
This performative hostility served to bond the two leaders against a common “enemy” and delegitimized the act of questioning authoritarian power.
The AI and Chip Alliance
A defining feature of the 2025 summit was the pivot from “oil for security” to “chips for security.” The agreements signed reflect a strategic decision to integrate Saudi Arabia into the core of the U.S. artificial intelligence supply chain.
The Nvidia Deal
The centerpiece is the partnership between Humain, a PIF-backed AI company, and U.S. tech giants. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, present at the investment forum, announced that Elon Musk’s xAI would be the first customer for a massive Saudi data center powered by 600,000 Nvidia chips.
This deal is significant for several reasons:
Scale: The facility is designed to consume 500 megawatts of power, a scale few other nations can support due to energy grid constraints. Saudi Arabia’s abundance of energy (both fossil and solar) makes it an ideal host for the energy-hungry training runs of next-generation AI models.
Security concerns: While the deal includes “comprehensive data-sovereignty controls” to keep data within the Kingdom, it raises profound export control questions. The U.S. has restricted advanced chip sales to China; placing 600,000 of these chips in Saudi Arabia creates a potential “backdoor” for Chinese access unless monitoring is rigorous.
Critical Minerals
The alliance extends to physical inputs of technology. The agreement with MP Materials to finance a rare earth refinery in Saudi Arabia is a strategic move to break China’s chokehold on the minerals supply chain. By processing these minerals in Saudi Arabia (a U.S. ally) rather than China (a strategic competitor), the U.S. aims to “friend-shore” a critical vulnerability.
This aligns Saudi industrial ambitions (Vision 2030) with U.S. national security needs.
Defense and Security Guarantees
The security component represents the most consequential shift in U.S. defense posture in the Middle East since the Gulf War.
The F-35 Sale
For years, the sale of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Saudi Arabia was blocked by concerns over Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME). The Trump administration shattered this taboo, approving the sale of 48 jets.
Israeli opposition: The Israeli Defense Forces submitted a formal position paper opposing the sale, arguing it erodes their regional superiority. Israel remains the only nation in the Middle East operating the stealth fighter. The sale to Saudi Arabia—a nation that has not normalized relations with Israel—introduces a fifth-generation threat into the region.
Trump’s calculation: The administration seemingly dismissed these concerns, or calculated that the Saudi need for F-35s to deter Iran outweighed the theoretical risk to Israel. Trump stated Saudi Arabia would get jets “pretty similar” to Israel’s, framing them as allies against a common enemy.
The Strategic Defense Agreement
The summit produced a “Strategic Defense Agreement” aimed at formalizing the U.S. commitment to Saudi security. However, the form of this agreement is intensely contentious.
Treaty vs. executive agreement: MBS reportedly sought a formal, Senate-ratified mutual defense treaty (like the U.S.-Japan treaty) to ensure durability beyond the Trump presidency. However, the political math in the Senate makes ratification unlikely (requiring 67 votes).
The “Qatar-Plus” model: Consequently, the agreement appears to follow the “Qatar model,” a binding executive agreement upgraded with a presidential security pledge. While this satisfies immediate needs, it leaves the alliance vulnerable to future political shifts in Washington.
Senate pushback: Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the bypassing of the Senate “very troubling” and warned that such commitments are “not legally binding” on future presidents. Similarly, Republican Senator Rand Paul, a staunch non-interventionist, has historically opposed such entanglements.
Major Non-NATO Ally Status
The designation of Saudi Arabia as a Major Non-NATO Ally is a significant, albeit largely symbolic, legal step.
Benefits: It unlocks specific privileges in defense trade, cooperative research and development, and eligibility for depleted uranium ammunition stockpiles.
Significance: It places Saudi Arabia on par with Israel, Japan, and South Korea in U.S. legal code, signaling to the bureaucracy (State, DoD) that the Kingdom is a priority partner.
Nuclear Cooperation
A quiet but critical success of the summit was the Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation agreement. Negotiations had long stalled over Saudi demands to enrich uranium domestically, a “red line” for non-proliferation advocates who feared it could lead to a weapons program.
By seemingly agreeing to forego enrichment (the “Gold Standard” of non-proliferation), Saudi Arabia accepted reliance on international fuel markets in exchange for U.S. technology (likely Westinghouse AP1000 reactors).
This prevents Saudi Arabia from turning to China for nuclear technology, which likely would have come with fewer restrictions. It also ostensibly mitigates the risk of a Saudi-Iran nuclear arms race, although skeptics like Senator Ed Markey continue to demand rigorous oversight and the “Additional Protocol” for inspections.
The Missing Piece: Israeli Normalization
Despite the fanfare, the summit failed to deliver the “Holy Grail” of Middle East diplomacy: Saudi-Israeli normalization.
The Palestinian Condition
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was explicit: there would be no normalization without a “clear path” to a Palestinian state. This position, hardened by the post-October 7 reality and the 12-Day War, reflects the Saudi need to maintain legitimacy in the Arab street.
With the Israeli government firmly opposed to Palestinian statehood, and the Trump administration generally supportive of Israeli positions, the “triangular deal” (US-Saudi-Israel) remains incomplete. The U.S. secured the bilateral US-Saudi leg, but the Saudi-Israel leg remains broken.
Regional Implications
The summit aimed to reassure other Gulf states. By formalizing the Saudi alliance, the U.S. hopes to create a unified GCC front. However, the exclusion of the Palestinian issue from the final deliverables may leave the region vulnerable to populist backlash, which Iran and its proxies could exploit.
Domestic Backlash
The “rehabilitation” of MBS has exacerbated domestic polarization within the United States.
Senate Friction
The aggressive pursuit of the Saudi deal has bled into personnel battles on Capitol Hill. The nomination of Elbridge Colby for a top Pentagon policy post has stalled due to a feud between Senate Armed Services Committee leaders and the administration.
Senators are frustrated by “opaque decision-making” regarding global force posture and the lack of consultation on deals like the Saudi pact. The refusal to share details on the “Qatar-plus” guarantee has led some senators to block nominees, a rare instance of Republican-on-Republican friction.
Human Rights Organizations
Civil society reaction has been scathing. Human Rights Watch’s Sarah Yager warned that the U.S. is validating “mass repression” and record executions.
9/11 Families
The visceral anger of the 9/11 families, amplified by the President’s dismissal of their concerns, creates a persistent political liability. The “sovereign immunity” defense used by the Saudis in court clashes directly with the “America First” populist rhetoric of justice for American citizens.
The Transactional Gamble
The Trump-MBS Summit of November 2025 represents the triumph of transactional realpolitik over normative foreign policy. Faced with a volatile Middle East, a rising China, and insatiable demand for capital to fuel the AI revolution, the Trump administration made a calculated decision: the strategic utility of Saudi Arabia outweighs the moral stain of the Khashoggi murder.
By erasing the “pariah” label, agreeing to sell F-35s, and offering security guarantees, Washington has anchored Riyadh in the Western sphere of influence, at least on paper. The $1 trillion investment pledge, if realized, could fundamentally reshape the U.S. tech landscape.
However, the risks are substantial. The administration has wagered U.S. credibility on the stability of an absolute monarchy. It has alienated key domestic constituencies. It has introduced advanced weaponry into a region without resolving the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has constructed a security architecture on the fragile foundation of executive orders rather than treaties.
In the cold calculus of 2025, the memory of Jamal Khashoggi and the grievances of 9/11 families were treated not as red lines, but as negotiable assets, traded away for the promise of gigawatts, chips, and containment.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
