Highlights
- The US and Ukraine reach a landmark agreement giving the US a share in Ukraine’s mineral revenues, creating a joint investment fund for postwar reconstruction.
- The deal was negotiated under complex political conditions, with President Trump seeking economic incentives and strategic leverage in supporting Ukraine.
- While offering economic opportunities, the agreement lacks concrete military support guarantees and comes amid uncertain geopolitical tensions with Russia.
As reported (opens in a new tab) April 30 by The New York Times, the United States and Ukraine have reached a significant agreement that will give the U.S. a share in the future revenues generated from Ukraine’s vast mineral reserves. The deal, announced by the Trump administration, also establishes a joint investment fund intended to contribute to Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction and economic recovery once the ongoing conflict with Russia comes to an end. The agreement marks the culmination of months of difficult negotiations, shaped by President Trump’s skepticism toward continued unconditional support for Kyiv.
From the start, the administration sought to move away from what Trump has long criticized as a “blank check” policy toward Ukraine. Instead, the new arrangement is framed as a strategic partnership — one that gives the U.S. a tangible economic interest in Ukraine’s future and, in theory, binds American involvement more directly to the country’s stability and prosperity.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent underscored the symbolic and strategic implications of the deal, calling it a clear message to Russia that the United States is committed to a free and sovereign Ukraine over the long haul. He emphasized that any entities complicit in supporting Russia’s invasion would be excluded from any role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, suggesting a moral line in an otherwise economically driven agreement.
Yet despite the symbolism, the deal offers no concrete guarantees of continued U.S. military support — a key concern for Ukraine as it remains under siege. According to sources familiar with the discussions, such security assurances were considered but ultimately excluded early in the negotiation process. Without a binding military component, the agreement may do little to shift the balance in Ukraine’s favor if hostilities persist.
Still, Kyiv’s leadership is betting that the partnership can foster goodwill with President Trump and ultimately create momentum for broader support. The idea of giving the United States a share in Ukraine’s mineral wealth reportedly originated during a meeting last September at Trump Tower between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump himself. Although the public announcement of the deal made no direct mention of minerals, the U.S. Treasury confirmed that the natural resources component is central to the pact.
What’s the Deal?
Under the terms now outlined, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation will work with Ukraine to hammer out specifics. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal announced via Telegram that the fund would operate with equal voting rights for both nations, while assuring that Ukraine retains full sovereignty over its natural resources, infrastructure, and subsoil. The profits generated by the fund are slated to be reinvested into Ukraine, furthering its reconstruction and economic development.
Shmyhal described the agreement as a gateway to drawing in high-value technologies, investment, and strategic partnerships from the United States. It is also viewed as a key stepping stone to more substantive negotiations over Ukraine’s long-sought military guarantees.
In Washington, some officials and diplomats viewed the final deal as a significant improvement over earlier drafts, which critics had seen as veiled attempts to exploit Ukraine’s dire wartime dependence. William B. Taylor, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, praised the revisions, noting that American negotiators ultimately took several Ukrainian suggestions into account — a sign, he said, that the U.S.-Ukraine dialogue under Trump may not be entirely adversarial.
A Delicate Pathway
Behind the scenes, however, tensions were high. The negotiations almost fell apart in February following a dramatic Oval Office meeting. There, instead of finalizing the agreement, Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly chastised Zelensky, accusing him of lacking gratitude for U.S. aid. Zelensky was dismissed from the meeting and military assistance to Ukraine was abruptly suspended. The Ukrainian president attempted to de-escalate the situation, later calling the episode “regrettable” and seeking to resume talks.
Key points of contention included Trump’s insistence that Ukraine should repay the military aid already provided, a demand Ukrainian officials vehemently opposed, arguing that it would cripple the country financially for decades. The idea of U.S. investment in Ukraine’s minerals was subsequently floated as a compromise — an economic incentive for Washington to stay engaged, if not militarily committed.
Some observers have viewed the final deal with suspicion, characterizing it as the U.S. leveraging Ukraine’s vulnerability to gain control over critical natural resources. Others within the administration have framed the investment as a stabilizing force — one that could deter future Russian aggression by binding American interests directly to Ukraine’s economic recovery.
A memorandum signed in mid-April laid the groundwork for the joint fund, which is expected to become a key conduit for postwar reconstruction. The fund not only offers opportunities for U.S. firms in mining, oil, and gas, but could also serve as a pipeline for broader reconstruction contracts if a cease-fire is achieved. The reconstruction market, long expected to be worth hundreds of billions, is now within reach for American corporations — should conditions allow.
Still, President Zelensky remains focused on the broader strategic stakes. He has stated that the minerals deal is not a standalone victory, but part of a larger campaign to secure real, lasting security guarantees. In a March message on X, he said the agreement represents “a step toward greater security” and expressed hope that it would help Ukraine build toward a more stable and protected future.
What’s Underneath?
Estimates suggest Ukraine holds over 20 types of critical minerals, with some consultants valuing the deposits in the trillions. Yet these reserves remain largely untapped, relying on decades-old Soviet geological maps and little in the way of modern survey work as Rare Earth Exchanges has reported.
The proposed U.S.–Ukraine critical minerals deal is emblematic of a deeply flawed upstream-only strategy that ignores the hard realities of mineral economics, logistics, and geopolitics. Many of Ukraine’s most promising rare earth and battery metal deposits are located in Russian-occupied or contested territories, making long-term access highly uncertain. Even where deposits are secure, Ukraine lacks the basic infrastructure for commercial-scale mining, let alone any midstream refining or downstream magnet or battery component production. The economics of extraction remain largely unassessed, and no feasibility studies have been publicly disclosed. Yet again, Washington appears fixated on signing headline-grabbing MOUs while neglecting to build or fund the integrated, end-to-end supply chains needed to turn ore into usable materials. This short-sighted approach risks repeating the same strategic mistakes that allowed China to dominate the rare earth ecosystem in the first place.
Currently, Ukraine earns roughly $1 billion annually in resource royalties — a figure far below the lofty projections floated by Trump, who has publicly claimed the U.S. stands to gain hundreds of billions through the partnership.
The deal’s announcement arrives at a precarious moment. Russian forces have been gaining ground, and Trump has continued to edge closer diplomatically to Vladimir Putin. The most recent U.S.-proposed cease-fire terms — which Ukraine has rejected — would see Kyiv abandon its NATO ambitions and accept Crimea as Russian territory. The proposal includes only vague commitments to Ukrainian security and is widely perceived as favoring Moscow.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to abandon negotiations altogether if progress is not made swiftly. He declared over the weekend that he expected a cease-fire agreement within two weeks, later suggesting he might tolerate a small delay. Yet even amid this pressure, he made clear that the minerals deal was non-negotiable, posting online that Ukraine was “at least three weeks late” in signing it and urging it be signed “IMMEDIATELY.”
Even in the final hours before the announcement, uncertainty lingered. Ukrainian officials arrived in Washington seeking last-minute amendments. During a cabinet meeting, Bessent remained optimistic, saying the agreement had been reached “in principle” and could be signed “this afternoon” if Ukraine agreed to the final terms.
An Unfolding Situation
The new minerals agreement is now seen as a critical opening move — not a finish line — in the evolving relationship between Ukraine and a Trump-led United States. Whether it becomes a cornerstone of lasting partnership or a flashpoint for further tension depends on what comes next: a cease-fire, concrete security commitments, or renewed hostilities on a war-torn European front.
Leave a Reply to Paul Rainbow Cancel reply