Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has a clear message for Donald Trump: steer clear of it.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, the former Army officer, now a YouTuber, criticized the proposed extensive U.S.-Saudi defense agreement. He described it as an excessively large commitment that risks entangling America in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.

“This would be an expensive and perilous blunder,” Davis asserted. “Saudi Arabia doesn’t require our protection. They have the resources to secure themselves. They are certainly affluent enough. Our involvement isn’t necessary.”

Having completed several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Davis is known for exposing U.S. military shortcomings in those regions. He voiced concerns that the proposed deal might lead to a familiar scenario where American forces, finances, and reputation are used to address foreign issues.

Back in 2012, while still active in Afghanistan, Davis was among the first military officers to publicly accuse high-ranking military officials of misrepresenting the war’s progress. His revelations sparked significant controversy in Washington, solidifying his standing as a bold advocate for truth.

Since retiring, he’s built a following as host of The Deep Dive on YouTube and a fellow at Defense Priorities, where he argues for a restrained US foreign policy and an end to America’s ‘endless wars.’

Now he’s taking aim at the latest plan emerging from Washington DC: a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia that could be signed during Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) White House visit with President Trump on Tuesday.

US and Saudi officials are locked in frantic negotiations to finalize a series of deals encompassing security, artificial intelligence and civilian nuclear technology, ahead of the meeting.

US President Donald Trump will meet Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on Tuesday

Daniel Davis blew the whistle on the Afghanistan war in 2012. Now, he’s scared about another Middle East entanglement 

Among the proposals: a massive weapons package, including F-35 fighter jets, expedited arms sales, deeper military coordination, and a formal defense framework designed to strengthen ties between the two longtime partners.

Behind the scenes, both sides expect splashy announcements from the Trump–MBS summit. Trump is seeking to cash in on a $600 billion Saudi investment pledge made during his visit to the kingdom in May.

But Saudi officials remain frustrated by what they see as American hesitation and unfulfilled promises.

The version now under discussion reportedly falls short of a binding treaty. Instead, it would mirror the model used with Qatar — enacted by executive order, not Senate ratification — and could therefore be reversed by future presidents.

Even this scaled-down pact alarms Davis.

‘Anytime you get into a security arrangement where you’re providing Article Five–type obligations, it’s got to be a two-way street,’ he said, referring to the NATO principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

‘There’s got to be something we get that we wouldn’t have without you. I don’t see that here.’

For Washington, the deal would signal renewed influence in the Gulf, lucrative weapons sales, and deeper cooperation with one of the region’s most powerful players.

Trump may be keen to bag a foreign-policy trophy, billions in arms sales, and prove he’s the ‘deal-maker-in-chief’ ahead of the 2026 midterms.

For Riyadh, it offers something even more valuable — a public guarantee of US military support, the ultimate deterrent against Iran. It would also shield MBS’s economic transformation plan, Vision 2030, from regional threats as the desert kingdom transitions away from oil.

But many on Capitol Hill, both Democrat and Republican, are wary.

US and Saudi military leaders inspect Iranian-made weapons used by rebel forces in Yemen’s war  

Saudi Arabians watch displays of the elite US Army 82nd Airborne Division in the desert sands 

A formal treaty would need Senate approval — an uphill battle after years of bipartisan anger over Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record, the Yemen war, and the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence agencies blamed directly on MBS.

Even a nonbinding deal would be controversial. Senator Lindsey Graham, once one of Riyadh’s biggest backers, is skeptical, while others such as Senator Mike Lee have warned against tying America’s security to an autocratic petrostate.

For decades, US protection of Saudi Arabia was justified under the so-called Carter Doctrine — that safeguarding Gulf oil supplies was a vital national interest. But that logic, Davis argues, no longer holds.

‘We produce more oil than anyone else,’ he said. ‘We’re not dependent on them the way we once were.’

He points to the 2019 drone and missile strike on Saudi oil facilities — widely blamed on Iran — as proof that Riyadh can handle its own crises. Despite the damage, the Saudis managed the aftermath diplomatically and without US military involvement.

‘If we’d had a treaty back then, it could have forced us into a war,’ Davis said. ‘That’s exactly the kind of situation we should avoid.’

Davis’s warning comes with the weight of hard experience. He watched firsthand as limited missions in Iraq and Afghanistan spiraled into open-ended occupations.

‘Anytime you give binding security guarantees, you’re potentially getting into a war you otherwise wouldn’t,’ he said. ‘Once you get sucked in, it can be decades before you get out, and it’s just a long drain on national resources.’

He fears a Saudi pact could create the same trap — an obligation that outlasts its purpose and drags future administrations into new conflicts.

‘It’s not in our national interest,’ he said bluntly.

The killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi government agents cast a long shadow in US-Saudi relations 

Critics of Saudi point to the alleged war crimes during its war in Yemen, such as the strikes on a prison in January 2020 that left at least 70 people dead

The 2019 strike on Saudi oil facilities could have sucked the US into a war if those two countries had a defense treaty at the time

A key sticking point is what Washington gets in return. The White House wants Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel.

Trump, who brokered the original accords in 2020, has publicly predicted Saudi Arabia would join ‘very soon.’

But MBS has doubled down: there will be no normalization without a credible path to Palestinian statehood, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and an international protection force for Palestinians.

In other words, Riyadh wants its own security needs met first — and a US defense deal could be the price.

For Davis, that’s an unacceptable bargain.

‘Even if you say it’s a carrot to bring about Saudi–Israeli normalization, it’s still a bad deal,’ he said. ‘It’s wildly out of proportion to what the benefit would be for our country.’

The crown prince’s Washington trip will be his first since the Khashoggi killing, a grim reminder of the moral and political baggage attached to any US–Saudi partnership.

Yet both sides have strong incentives. For Trump, a new pact could be billed as a foreign-policy triumph and a fresh start in the Middle East. For MBS, it would cement his status as a global power player — not a pariah.

But Davis warns that the American people will ultimately pay the price for such symbolism.

‘We can cheer it on, encourage it, support it diplomatically,’ he said. ‘But having an American security guarantee for the benefit of Saudi Arabia or Israel is just out of proportion to what’s at stake for us.’

American soldiers man a self-propelled howitzer during Operation Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia in 1990

Deal-making between Trump and MBS is about money, influence, technology and regional diplomacy  

US Apache attack helicopters over the Saudi desert before the allied intervention of Kuwait during the 1990 Gulf crisis

Saudi Arabia is not the fragile kingdom of the 1970s. It has one of the world’s largest defense budgets, a sprawling arsenal of US-made weapons, and a modern air force capable of defending its borders.

‘They don’t need our help,’ Davis said. ‘They can afford to defend themselves — and they should.’

As the Trump–MBS meeting approaches, the outlines of a new US–Saudi partnership are becoming clear: strong on symbolism, light on legal obligations, and heavy with political risk.

Whether Trump signs a formal pact or settles for a symbolic one, the decision will shape America’s role in the Middle East for years to come — and test how much risk Washington is willing to share for an ally that insists it no longer needs saving.