Families of victims of the September 11 attacks are mobilizing opposition to a proposed agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would facilitate the development of nuclear energy projects in the kingdom. The deal, supported by the Trump administration, would enable U.S. companies to collaborate with Saudi Arabia on building nuclear reactors.

Terry Strada, chair of the advocacy group 9/11 Families United, expressed strong objections to the plan, questioning how the U.S. could grant access to nuclear technology to a country she alleges has not taken responsibility for its role in the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. "How do you give a country nuclear weapons that [is] responsible for murdering 3,000 people and they’ve never owned up to it?" Strada said.

The group aims to use the negotiation and approval process for the agreement as leverage to compel Saudi Arabia to acknowledge alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks, a claim that Riyadh has consistently denied. The families’ opposition underscores the broader sensitivity surrounding nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia given lingering concerns related to the attacks and regional security implications.

The nuclear deal would mark a significant expansion of U.S.-Saudi cooperation in civilian nuclear technology, a move promoted by American officials as a means of strengthening bilateral ties and supporting energy diversification in Saudi Arabia. However, critics argue the arrangement could increase risks of nuclear proliferation in the volatile Middle East region.

Saudi officials have maintained that their nuclear ambitions are intended solely for peaceful energy purposes and have rejected allegations linking the kingdom to the 9/11 plot. The ongoing debate echoes longstanding tensions between national security considerations and efforts to deepen strategic partnerships in the region.

As the approval process continues, the voices of 9/11 victims’ families represent a formidable political and moral obstacle to finalizing the agreement, raising complex questions about balancing counterterrorism legacies with future diplomatic and economic objectives.