Introduction: A controversial alliance takes shape
From the moment Donald Trump entered the U.S. presidency, the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia entered a new phase marked by personal chemistry, strategic calculations, and public controversy. Central to this narrative is the bond between former President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). Their relationship has been described by many observers as a mix of shared interests, mutual disdain for adversaries, and a willingness to overlook grave accusations. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 amplified the scrutiny around this partnership, yet it did little to derail high-level meetings, arms deals, and a shared focus on energy and regional influence.
Suspicion and certainty: Khashoggi’s death and the subsequent fallout
The October 2018 killing of Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul prompted global outrage and widespread calls for accountability. The CIA and other investigations concluded that MBS played a key role in approving the operation, a claim the crown prince publicly denied in different forums. Regardless of official verdicts, the episode underscored a persistent tension in U.S.-Saudi ties: a demand for transparency and human rights concerns paired with a keen interest in security cooperation and defense sales. For Trump, the episode became a test of political pragmatism: balance public condemnation with the practical realities of a long-standing strategic partnership.
The personal angle: a leadership style that resonated with Trump
Analysts note that Trump’s affinity for direct, confrontational leadership found a mirror in MBS’s bold, centralized approach to decision-making. Their rapport was often described as a dynamics of blunt language, transactional deals, and a shared skepticism toward traditional multilateral frameworks. This personal chemistry helped sustain a policy stances that aligned on Iran pressure, oil market considerations, and defense commitments, even when human rights concerns loomed large in the public discourse. Critics argue that this closeness risked normalizing behaviors that many view as unacceptable in international governance, while supporters contend that it provided a straightforward counterweight to regional opponents.
Energy, security, and strategy: what united them
The collaboration between Washington and Riyadh has always rested on a trio of pillars: energy stability, counterterrorism cooperation, and regional deterrence. For the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia’s oil production and influence over Middle East oil markets offered a practical lever to shape global energy prices and economic policy. For MBS, a strong security partnership with the United States protected Saudi interests against rival states and internal dissent. This convergence enabled bold moves in areas like arms sales, defense cooperation, and joint counterterrorism initiatives, even as each side navigated domestic political constraints and international scrutiny.
Controversy, criticism, and the path forward
In the years that followed, calls for accountability around Khashoggi intensified debates about the calculus of US-Saudi collaboration. Human rights advocates argued that the partnership eroded American professed values, while strategists warned that public pressure could destabilize a critical regional balance. The administration’s approach varied with leadership changes, but the underlying dynamic remained: a willingness to engage with a controversial Saudi leadership while juggling the risks to credibility and legal norms. Looking ahead, the question is whether this bond will adapt to evolving norms on human rights and governance, or whether it will persist as a durable strategic arrangement based on shared interests.
Conclusion: A complex alliance in a complex region
The relationship between former President Trump and MBS is a case study in how personal rapport can influence statecraft, even as the world watches closely for accountability and ethical implications. As US-Saudi ties continue to evolve amid shifting regional dynamics and global energy markets, the narrative remains one of contention and pragmatic cooperation—two forces that have repeatedly defined this controversial alliance.
