Trump Hails $600b Saudi Pact, Jokes Fly Over 51st State

A Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA. Credit: US Department of Defense (DoD)

When former U.S. President Donald Trump playfully suggested turning Canada into America’s 51st state, the response from the north was swift and unequivocal: “Thanks, but no thanks.”

With national pride intact, Canadians dismissed the offer with satire and seriousness, rallying around the slogan: “We don’t want to be part of America.” The proposal was buried quickly, mocked by politicians and media alike as a textbook example of Trumpian overreach.

Undeterred, Trump pivoted to Greenland — the autonomous Danish territory known for its ice sheets and strategic location. Declaring an interest in buying it, Trump faced another frosty rebuttal. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declared bluntly, “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland belongs to Greenland.” A protest in Nuuk saw a clever twist on Trump’s iconic slogan: “Make America Go Away” — MAGA with a local punch.

Now, in an ironic turn of events that has sparked whispers in the diplomatic lounges of the United Nations, Saudi Arabia — not a geographic neighbor, but an oil-rich ally — is being joked about as a potential “51st state” of the United States. The joke, of course, stems from a staggering $600 billion investment package that Saudi Arabia announced during Trump’s high-profile visit to Riyadh last week.

While clearly said in jest, the remark reflects the unprecedented nature of the deal — the largest in U.S. history, according to the Trump camp. Trump, basking in the spotlight, described Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as “an incredible man” and “a great guy,” conspicuously omitting any mention of human rights controversies that continue to dog the Kingdom.

The centrepiece of the agreement is a vast expansion of military and economic ties, including U.S. arms sales, energy cooperation, and long-term investments in technology and infrastructure.

According to a White House fact sheet, Saudi Arabia remains “our largest Foreign Military Sales (FMS) partner” with active defense cases now valued at more than $142 billion — nearly double the Kingdom’s 2025 defense budget of $78 billion.

“Our defense relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is stronger than ever under President Trump’s leadership,” the White House asserted. “The package signed is the largest defense cooperation deal in U.S. history, and a clear demonstration of our commitment to strengthening this partnership.”

The deal opens the door to expanded participation by U.S. defense firms and longer-term sustainment partnerships with Saudi military entities. It also reinforces Riyadh’s position as one of the largest buyers of U.S. weaponry.

Zain Hussain, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS that Saudi Arabia is heavily dependent on American arms. Between 2015 and 2024, the U.S. accounted for 72% of all Saudi arms imports, and the figure climbed to 74% for the 2020–2024 period.

More detailed breakdowns show just how deep the reliance runs:

Aircraft: 80% of Saudi imports were U.S.-supplied

Missiles: 84% came from the U.S.

Armoured vehicles: 65% sourced from U.S. companies

Air defence systems: 89% originated in the U.S.

Yet Riyadh isn’t completely dependent on Washington. Between 2015 and 2024, most of its naval vessels were imported from Spain (67%), France (21%), and Germany (12%), indicating a diversified but U.S.-leaning defense procurement strategy.

The White House celebrated the broader agreement as “historic and transformative” — not just for military ties, but also in energy, critical minerals, transport, and emerging technologies. Officials claimed the pact marked a “new golden era” in U.S.-Saudi relations, one that would benefit American workers and bolster national security.

But arms control and human rights experts aren’t convinced.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow at the Acronym Institute who monitors arms trade at the UN, is sharply critical. “We’ve seen this movie before,” she said. In 2017, Trump promised a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. But according to Glenn Kessler, fact checker for The Washington Post, there was little evidence of actual progress. The claim earned Trump the maximum “Four Pinocchios” for falsehoods.

“President Trump tends to make grandiose claims that frequently are not supported in reality,” said Dr. Goldring. “In this case, the press release touts him as ‘dealmaker-in-chief,’ but provides no substantive details. We don’t know how much of this originated in his first term—or in the Biden administration.”

She added that the deals place too much emphasis on hypothetical economic gains, ignoring the foreign policy risks and human rights implications. “Weapons aren’t toasters. They shouldn’t be sold like consumer goods,” she noted. “By U.S. law, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record should disqualify it from receiving military equipment. The same should apply to other U.S. allies like Israel.”

According to the White House, Saudi Arabia was one of the United States’ largest trading partners in the Middle East in 2023. That year, Saudi direct investment in the U.S. reached $9.5 billion, focused on sectors such as transportation, real estate, and automotive manufacturing.

In 2024, bilateral goods trade totaled $25.9 billion, with U.S. exports at $13.2 billion and imports at $12.7 billion, leaving a modest U.S. trade surplus of $443 million.

For critics, this multi-billion-dollar promise may just be another chapter in Trump’s legacy of bold claims and blurred lines between diplomacy, business, and spectacle. For supporters, it’s a bold and unapologetic assertion of American global leadership, transactional as it may be.

Either way, the image of Trump toasting a $600 billion handshake with Saudi Arabia — while jokes about “America’s next state” swirl in UN hallways — offers a dramatic snapshot of U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era: unpredictable, unprecedented, and unmistakably Trumpian.

Thalif Deen is Senior Editor at Inter Press Service (IPS) and former UN correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly. A Fulbright scholar, he holds a Master’s in Journalism from Columbia University and previously served as Director of Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services (DMS). He is author of No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That (2021).