Trump Signs Deal with Saudi Arabia to Let It Enrich Uranium

In the same year Donald Trump attacked Iran for enriching uranium, he signed a deal with Saudi Arabia to help it enrich uranium. That could lead Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons in a few years. Of course, there was the usual boilerplate that Saudi Arabia is not supposed to develop (or buy) its own enrichment capabilities for 10 years, but there is no way to enforce that at all. To make it clear that Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, known as MbS, wants no part of serious inspections, he refused to sign the standard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the grounds that he doesn't want inspectors nosing around in the holy city of Mecca.

What is this all about? Nobody is talking and if someone starts talking, take it with oil barrels full of salt. Does Saudi Arabia need nuclear reactors to power its massive industrial base? Maybe not, since it doesn't have one. But if it acquires one someday, how could it be powered? Oil? Where would Saudi Arabia find oil in the middle of the desert? Solar power? You need sunshine and a lot of empty land for that. Obviously not an option for Saudi Arabia. No, nuclear power is obviously the only way to go for them.

Maybe we need some creative thinking here. Late last year, Trump and MbS reached a agreement for the U.S. to sell Saudi Arabia its most advanced weapon, the F-35 stealth fighter. Normally, only close allies are allowed to buy F-35s. Trump apparently sees Saudi Arabia, the homeland of 16 of the 19 9/11 terrorists, as a good friend. Many members of Congress see it as a not-terribly-trustworthy oil merchant.

Now the uranium deal. What is going on here? There are two grifty explanations and one non-grifty explanation, none of them good. The first grifty one is that Trump would have known before the announcement that the stock in Westnghouse would shoot up yesterday because Westinghouse is the leading nuclear reactor manufacturer in the world. He and his cronies could have loaded up on Westinghouse stock in advance and made a killing. Here is the Westinghouse stock price over the past 5 days:

The second grifty explanation is that the F-35 and uranium deals are paybacks for MbS giving Jared Kushner $2 billion of the Saudis' money to play with. After all, Saudi Arabia could easily have gotten a large bank with actual experience in money management to do the work. And maybe it is a pay-forward for the Saudis giving Kushner more money to play with in the future.

The non-grifty explanation is that Trump has come to understand that the war with Iran is lost and Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Allowing Saudi Arabia to also develop nuclear weapons (since there is no other plausible explanation for it enriching uranium, given their other energy sources) could provide a counterbalance with Iran. Two nuclear-armed enemies, whose intense hatred for the other's branch of Islam goes back almost 1,400 years. What could possibly go wrong?

Back in 1970, 46 countries agreed to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons. That number has now grown to 191. The idea was to limit nuclear weapons to the five countries that already had them (the U.S., the U.K., the Soviet Union, France, and China) to reduce the threat of a nuclear war that could make much of the Earth uninhabitable for many years. Since then, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have tested nuclear weapons. Israel is suspected of having them. None of these countries signed the NPT.

One of the key provisions of the NPT was that nuclear countries would not help non-nuclear countries develop nuclear weapons. So far, everyone has largely stuck to the deal—until Trump's decision to help Saudi Arabia acquire them, despite the (absurd) claim that the Kingdom needs nuclear power for domestic electricity production because it doesn't have any good alternatives. But after all, obeying a Senate-ratified international treaty is for suckers. (V)

Trump Ignored Warning about Giving the U.A.E. Sensitive Tech

Even under the best of conditions, the Middle East is a nest of vipers, where your friends are also your enemies. Case in point: the United Arab Emirates. This is a federation of seven hereditary absolute monarchies, where political parties are banned, there is no parliament, and dissent is not tolerated. It is nominally America's friend but also a close ally and trading partner with China.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce loosened restrictions on selling sensitive tech exports to the U.A.E. Commerce staffers whose mission is to keep critical tech from adversaries were surprised (well, maybe "appalled" would be a better word) by the decision, which apparently came from higher up. Senior officials in the DoC have opposed this for years because the U.A.E. has no need for top-of-the-line AI chips—other than making a lot of money marking them up and selling them to China for a windfall profit. One inside source told Politico: "It is an open secret that the U.A.E. is the primary diversion point for sensitive U.S. technologies in the Middle East—by orders of magnitude." There were multiple internal reports within Commerce warning of the security dangers. One former Commerce official said: "There was a sense even as we were doing [the reports] that it was already a foregone conclusion and we were just sort of spitting in the wind."

Last year, the DOC, which is run by Donald Trump's good buddy Howard Lutnick, agreed to sell the U.A.E. 35,000 of Nvidia's most advanced chips. The new move includes advanced chips, but also military equipment, satellite components and parts used in nuclear reactors. This is one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions in years, and it is hard to see how it benefits Americans, other than perhaps some who knew about it in advance and could load up early on the stocks of the companies making the equipment to be sold.

Much of the tech will be sold to an Abu Dhabi-based company, G42, that is involved with AI infrastructure and cloud computing. It is run by Peng Xiao, a Chinese-born American executive who renounced his U.S. citizenship to become an Emirati national. Other top G42 staffers also have close ties with China and Chinese tech companies. The whole thing has been a giant red flag for years and previous presidents have carefully avoided handing critical U.S. tech to the U.A.E. Now Trump has discarded that and eagerly wants to do business with the U.A.E., none of whose leaders are known for their morality or scruples.

Why the huge change in U.S. policy after so many years of refusing to sell critical tech and military equipment to the U.A.E.? We have no idea. We do know, however, That Trump's sons and Steve Witkoff created a company called World Liberty Financial. It created and issues a crypto coin and provides a platform for people to buy and sell the coins (for a fee). The company has no actual assets (other than the coins it creates itself) and has no products or services other than the self-created coins and running a market for them. Nevertheless, a shrewd Emirati investor, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, bought 49% of World Liberty Financial for $500 million a few days before Trump's 2025 inauguration. All of that money flowed directly to the people who created the company and who own the stock in it. In a funny coincidence, Tahnoon is chairman of G42. In another funny coincidence, he is the brother of the U.A.E.'s president.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a bit skeptical. She said:

It reeks of corruption. The UAE secretly buys a 49 percent stake in Donald Trump's crypto business. Then the UAE gets access to chips that the U.S.' own security people say should not be given to the UAE. What does the UAE plan to do with those chips? The concern of our own security people is that they end up in China and help advance Chinese weapons systems that will be used against the U.S.

The Senator is such a worrywart.

Oh, and in another complete coincidence, earlier this spring Trump said that the U.A.E. would invest $1.4 trillion in the U.S. Trump probably is thinking of them building a few factories in red states that will employ a few hundred people each and then Trump can brag about his job-creation powers. But the U.A.E. might well have a different idea of what investing $1.4 trillion in the U.S. means. For example, it could buy Mastercard for $470 billion and Visa for $670 billion, with $260 billion left over for other deals. Then it would have a vast trove of data about almost all Americans and their finances. Surely that would be valuable. With the other $260 billion, the U.A.E. could buy Wells Fargo Bank, Qualcomm, Verizon or Boeing. (V)

Trump's Base Is Souring on His War

A new Public First poll shows that only 37% of MAGA/Trump voters now believe the war in Iran should continue, even if it increases costs in America. And 37% believe it should continue, but only if it does not increase costs in America. Additionally, 19% believe the war should end now, no matter what. Two months ago, half of MAGA voters wanted the war to continue, regardless of the costs. Here is a graphic of the data:

It is clear from the data that MAGA voters are feeling the economic fallout from the war. Most of them don't care so much about the geopolitical aspects, the Strait of Hormuz, the dead American soldiers, the $40 billion cost, or the depletion of U.S. munitions, but boy, oh boy, do they ever care about paying an additional $1 for a gallon of gas.

The national average is now $4.06/Gal. What are people blaming? The war in Iran is in first place, with Trump's tariffs in second place. Here are the top five, broken down by partisanship:

Majorities of all groups blame the war. It is inescapable. A quarter of MAGA voters also blame Trump's tariffs. In any event, the blame rests squarely on him. This certainly doesn't mean these people are now going to vote for some random Democrat for the House, but they could well stay home in November out of disgust. And, of course, there are two Senate races set up so that people can vote for a viable non-Republican without voting for a Democrat (Montana and Nebraska).

What is also noteworthy is that among Trump 2024 voters, 20% admit that gas prices have gone up more under Trump than they would have under Kamala Harris. But an astounding number, 34%, think that gas prices would have gone up more under Harris. Do they think she would have started a war with Iran and botched it even worse than Trump? More likely, the old reflex: "Democrats bad" is kicking in, without any basis.

Is Trump thus trying to end the war as fast as possible to get the price of gas down? Actually, no. It could be that he wants to keep it going to extract maximal personal grift from it, or he is embarrassed that he tore up the agreement Barack Obama carefully negotiated with Iran (in which the Strait of Hormuz was open and free) and replaced it with the far worse situation that Trump created. The President's advisers now all realize that Iran is in the driver's seat and the only way to dislodge it would be a ground invasion, which would cost hundreds of American lives and dozens of House seats. Trump doesn't give a hoot about dead soldiers but he does care (somewhat) about losing control of the House (and the subsequent impeachments).

A lot of the problem is that Americans do not support the war because they do not understand what the purpose is. Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative magazine, said:

This shows that as unpopular as the first round of war was from February to early summer, this second round is even more ridiculous. The American people quite simply do not get it, do not understand why we are in this war, and, yes, President Trump is king of the Republican Party.

The American people aren't the only ones who don't get it. Neither does Trump. On Tuesday, he (again) said: "They [The midterms] won't have any impact on me. I'm just here to do the right thing. I don't view it as, gee, we're having an election in a period of time." If Trump is really extending the war to keep the grift going, that might be technically true, however ironic that might seem. (V)

How Does Troy Jackson Compare to Graham Platner?

On Saturday, an ad hoc state Democratic convention will select a Senate candidate to replace the disgraced What's-his-name. The odds-on favorite is former president of the Maine state Senate, Troy Jackson. The Cook Political Report took a look at his strengths and weaknesses compared to oh—now we remember, wasn't it Lindsey Graham Platner, or something?

On policy, there is not a lot of daylight between the two. They support largely the same things. For voters who latched onto Platner simply on account of policy, Jackson won't disappoint them. In another way, Jackson is much better than Platner, who claimed to be "working class." This was not exactly true. His father was a prominent business attorney and his mother owned an upscale restaurant that bought most of the oysters Platner raised. Platner went to the exceedingly elite Hotchkiss prep school in Connecticut (current cost: $81,000/year)—until he was expelled for behavioral problems. Then he went to a public high school in Bangor. He was never poor, or even close, as a kid. Jackson's father was a fifth-generation logger and his mother was a public school teacher. His mother was 16 when he was born and the family was unstable. They didn't make enough to live on, so, unlike Platner, Jackson grew up in poverty. His parents eventually divorced. When Jackson was in 7th grade, his dad and the other loggers went on strike. He understood from a young age what working class really means. He himself became a logger and later a union leader. That is a lot more authentically blue collar than raising oysters for your mom's fancy restaurant.

Jackson was born in Fort Kent, ME, but grew up in Allagash, ME (pop. 237), about 10 miles from the Canadian border as the Canada goose flies. Susan Collins is from Caribou, ME, also in northern Maine, where her parents owned a sixth-generation lumber business. Both of her parents were town mayors. People from northern Maine, say, ME-02, don't regard people from the southern coast (ME-01) as true Mainers. Platner is from Sullivan, ME, close to the resort town of Bar Harbor, next to Acadia National Park. To people in ME-02, Jackson is a true Mainer and Platner is not—nor was Collins' 2020 opponent, Sara Gideon. So Jackson negates one of Collins' advantages: being seen as a true Mainer (and better yet, one who knows rural poverty).

Jackson has been in Maine politics for 25 years, initially as a Republican. He is known for his hot temper, but he has already been vetted to some extent and there is probably not much left to discover. Of course, the entire Republican oppo team is about to go over the state with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt. But maybe there isn't any. At least not personal dirt. But 25 years in the state legislature means he has taken a lot of votes that can be mined and distorted. For example, he used to oppose abortion access, but that was years ago. He can also make the case that the Senate is not an entry-level job and having been president of a state Senate definitely qualifies him for the position.

Jackson also has some disadvantages compared to Platner. First, although Platner looked and sounded like he came from a working-class background, he didn't. Jackson did, but appearances are what matters, not reality. And Platner has a more compelling "look." Second, Jackson is a fair bit older than Platner (58 vs. 41). Third, Platner is a fiery, gifted public speaker. Jackson is not a terribly exciting speaker. One Maine Republican put it this way: Jackson has the credentials, but not the magic.

Jackson's main task will be addressing women voters who like the idea of a female senator but don't like some of Collins' votes. He will hammer her on those. When Collins hits him on his anti-abortion past, he will hit right back on her vote for Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Jackson will also have to raise money quickly, but since the race is already nationalized, once he is the official nominee, money will be flowing in from as far away as Hawaii. And in reality, he won't have to campaign in ME-01. It is very blue (D+11). He can focus entirely on northern Maine, where he is from and which doesn't have any expensive media markets. The biggest city in the district is Lewiston (Pop. 37,000). (V)

Who Are the DSA Members?

Nate Silver is still around. He founded FiveThirtyEight, worked for The New York Times, then for ABC, and now has his own blog, Silver Bulletin. He writes about politics and sports. With the Democratic Socialists of America in the news a lot lately, he did some digging into who the DSA members are and wrote a column about his findings.

He took a look at the Cooperative Election Study, which is a database of 400,000 voters, allowing small subgroups to be studied. By now everyone knows that high educational attainment generally correlates with high income and voting for liberal Democrats. But Silver found an oddity in the data. There is a group with high educational attainment (at least a bachelors degree), but moderately low income. The problem is that the U.S. cranks out more college graduates annually than the economy can absorb, while there is (unfulfilled) demand for plumbers. The consequence is that some people with a college degree or more are basically downwardly mobile and are working in jobs that don't need a college degree and don't pay well. He made this table showing the relation of education, income, and voting for 2016-2024 presidential voting:

Based on this data, which is the most Democratic group in America? It is the people with a postgraduate degree making $30-$60K. These are the people who have a Ph.D. from studying the philosophy from some Belgian philosopher no one else has ever heard of, and are not working as a professional philosopher, and are not making as much money as they expected. They think something is rotten in America. This is where the DSA membership comes from. A study by the DSA of its membership showed that most of its members were working as teachers, nonprofit workers, social workers or government employees. They were not working class at all, and 85% were white, which is not even representative of the Democratic Party, let alone the country.

By way of contrast, the most Republican boxes in the table above are the three lower left ones, people with little education but making a lot of money. These are small business owners, contractors, real estate developers, used car dealers, etc.

When broken down by race, the table above for only white voters is basically the same, but for Black voters it is very different. It is much more uniform. The only two boxes below 83% are the lower left one (69%) and the one to its right (78%). Rich, undereducated Black people are the only ones with any interest at all in what the Republicans are selling, and even then, not much.

DSA members are largely disillusioned highly educated white progressives who are disappointed by their economic reality. But the DSA is for the "omnicause." If you want better wages for working-class people, you also have to support abortion on demand, be for immigration, embrace gay and trans rights, and oppose Israel. It is a package deal. Silver suspects that if the DSA dropped the cultural stuff and just focused on the economic issues, like a much higher minimum wage, stronger unions, and guaranteed health care, it would do better.

The data also show that the people who describe themselves as extremely or very liberal are also in the DSA box of people with postgraduate degrees making $30-$60K. The DSA box has similar priorities as all voters on many issues, but sharply diverges on a few of them. Here are the numbers:

As you can see, on affordabilty, democracy, and healthcare, the extremely/very liberal voters are pretty much in line with all voters as the top issues. However, there are a few places where they sharply diverge, especially gay people, trans people, climate change, Israel, crime and China. These are likely the issues that are keeping the DSA from becoming a major political force. Noah Smith recently argued that the socialist left and the woke left are very different movements. The DSA is actually more the woke left (focused on cultural issues) than the traditional socialist left (focused on economic issues).The European Social Democratic parties are much more working class than the DSA and are not populated by people with postgraduate degrees. They are largely focused on traditional socialism, meaning improving life for working-class people, with only minor attention to cultural issues, if any at all. For example, here is the platform of the British Labour Party. The eight issues listed are the economy, secure borders, national security, economic growth, clean energy, crime, education and healthcare. Cultural issues? Not so much. If the DSA would drop the cultural stuff and focus on making life better for actual working-class people (rather than supporting the policy preferences of disillusioned underemployed people with postgraduate degrees) if might actually become a competitive party, as the Labour Party is. (V)

Democrats Are in Disarray--about the 2028 Primary Schedule

It is a crazy aspect of U.S. politics that if a presidential candidate performs poorly in two extremely unrepresentative states—Iowa and New Hampshire—the media say you can stick a fork in them because they are all done. The only candidate who lost both (since they moved to the front of the line) and was still elected president was Bill Clinton, but he was a truly gifted candidate. The bottom line here is that the order of the primaries is (unfortunately) very important. The first two don't always pick the winner but they often weed out candidates who might have won had other states had gone first.

This week, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is going to propose the 2028 primary schedule. It will then go to a vote of the full DNC. It is a tradition for four small states, in different regions of the country, to go first. Having a truly representative state, like California, go first, would mean candidates who couldn't raise $50 million right off the bat would have no chance. In a smaller state, a convincing candidate with no money but a good story to tell can win (See Carter, Jimmy).

Two states that are trying hard to be #1 are South Carolina and Nevada. The battle is getting acrimonious. South Carolina is saying: "60% of the Democrats here are Black and Black voters are the Democrats' most loyal constituency, so we should go first." Nevada is saying: "Latinos are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the country and Nevada has many Latinos, so a candidate Latinos like is essential." Also playing a role is that Nevada is a swing state that the right candidate could actually win. No Democrat is going to win South Carolina, so pleasing its voters doesn't count for much once the primary is over. Another state that would be willing to go first is Virginia. Although it is a blue state, it has a large Black population and borders on a swing state (North Carolina) the Democrats keep lusting after. Actually, North Carolina might be an even better choice since it has a large Black population and would be a real prize in the general election. But no one seems to be talking about it.

Xavier Becerra, soon to be the first Latino governor of California, and a Democratic power player, is lobbying hard for Nevada. A current governor who is a Latina and is lobbying for a Latino-heavy state is Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM). She prefers her own state, but would be happy with Nevada as well.

One complication is that New Hampshire has a state law requiring it to have the first primary. It is not going to change its law. The former New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, once famously said he would hold the primary on Halloween of the year before the election if he had to in order to go first. What the Democrats could do is impose a severe penalty on candidates who filed to run in New Hampshire—for example, not allowing them on stage during debates. By next week, we should know how this is going to play out. (V)

Former Biden Aide: Harris Is Not Going to be President

An article in the New York Intelligencer by David Freedlander is entitled: "Like It or Not, Kamala Harris is the Front Runner." It describes her in glowing terms and excuses her 2020 and 2024 failed runs. It quotes Democratic strategist Minyon Moore, who said: "She's been listening to the American people and really trying to figure out what's impacting them and how she can be of service to them."

Now there is some pushback from a Biden insider, Michael LaRosa, who was Jill Biden's press secretary. Put very bluntly, what's bothering people is affordability and Harris can best be of service to them by getting out of the way for a new generation. LaRosa said: "She follows. She doesn't take risks. She calculates. She doesn't answer questions, she equivocates. She's got to get over that if she wants to make a connection with people, but I don't think she's going to get a third at-bat."

We agree with that. Harris is old and boring, not to mention she is very closely tied to a president who is perceived as being old and boring. Oh, and she is a woman. They are batting .000 so far and Democrats are desperate to win in 2028. Harris is going to have to compete with some new faces. If elected, she would be eligible for Social Security on Day 1. That is not what the Democrats are looking for and they will have plenty of choices who are younger and a lot more exciting. If they want a fighter, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) will be available. If they want to break some new barrier, Pete Buttigieg and Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) may be available. If they don't mind an older guy who will attack Donald Trump as a corrupt tyrant and the Republicans as his enablers, maybe Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) will shoot for the stars.

Harris' main claim to fame now is that she is well known. But for what? She was a senator. Is there a "Harris Act" that did something important? What did she accomplish as vice president? Freedlander seems to be forgetting that Harris is precisely what the Democrats do not want right now, and that when pollsters ask Democrats: "Who is your preferred presidential candidate?" her name pops into their mind first substantially because of name recognition. But when the campaign starts and there are debates, other candidates will show a lot more fire. We have no doubt that Harris wants to be president. It's just that not so many other people also want that. Early in the 2024 campaign, many Black women were worried that if Harris ran and lost, no Black woman would be even considered for a generation. Even those women might not be on her side now. Some day an exciting woman of color will make a serious run, but it is more likely to be Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) than Harris. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger