Highlights

• Trump's team proposes Ukraine surrender 50% of its resource revenues in exchange for military aid and potential security guarantees.
• The deal faces significant challenges including war-damaged infrastructure, long mining development timelines, and geopolitical complexities.
• The agreement raises critical questions about the US commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and potential economic exploitation during wartime.

The latest analysis (opens in a new tab) by Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) dissects the potential U.S.-Ukraine rare earth and critical mineral agreement. At its core, the proposed deal would see Ukraine ceding 50% of its rare earth revenues and natural resource wealth—including uranium, lithium, oil, gas, and even port revenues—to the U.S. in exchange for past and potentially future military aid. Trump’s team is pressing hard for the agreement, with National Security Advisor Mike Waltz calling it Ukraine’s “best security guarantee.” But President Volodymyr Zelensky refused to sign, citing the lack of concrete security assurances. A second, watered-down proposal has been floated. Still, tensions between Kyiv and Washington are escalating, with Trump openly threatening to cut a separate deal with Moscow if Ukraine doesn’t comply.

While Baskaran and Schwartz thoroughly assess the deal’s economic and logistical feasibility, they downplay the political implications of Trump’s aggressive approach. They highlight key barriers to investment, including outdated geological surveys, war-ravaged infrastructure, and the long development timeline for rare earth mining—often taking up to 18 years and requiring $500 million to $1 billion in capital.

The analysis rightly notes that half of Ukraine’s power infrastructure has been destroyed—a major issue for an energy-intensive industry like mining.

However, what they avoid discussing is the deeper political coercion at play. The U.S. is essentially leveraging Ukraine’s survival as collateral, forcing it to surrender half of its future resource wealth while Trump courts Russia. The authors mention Trump’s tentative peace talks with Putin but fail to question whether this deal is more about exploiting Ukraine’s vulnerabilities than securing a long-term minerals strategy.

The report also sidesteps China’s role in global rare earth dominance. While it draws a parallel to China’s resource-for-aid swap in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), it doesn’t acknowledge that China already controls 70%+ of rare earth processing. Even if Ukraine’s deposits were viable, U.S. reliance on China’s refining capacity wouldn’t change overnight.  In fact, there is a good chance that such an outtake will be sent to China for processing if it is feasible in the short to intermediate run.

The analysis suggests the U.S. deal might shortchange Ukraine, like China did to the DRC, but fails to ask whether Ukraine has any real choice in the matter.  This debate is about whether the U.S. is acting as Ukraine’s ally or its creditor. Trump’s ultimatum—hand over your minerals or we’ll make peace with Russia—raises serious questions about U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. While the CSIS report offers a solid economic critique, it avoids the larger geopolitical reality: this isn’t a strategic minerals deal—it’s more than likely an offer Ukraine can’t refuse.