Negotiations between the United States and Ukraine over a proposed minerals deal have taken a significant turn, with the latest amendments set to create new pathways for cooperation. Donald Trump, who has hinted at ending the war quickly, is now at the forefront of discussions surrounding Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth, which has drawn mixed reactions from both nations.
Recent drafts of the proposed agreement, published by European Pravda, do not firmly commit the U.S. to provide direct security guarantees to Ukraine. Nonetheless, they stipulate how American financial interests would be interlinked with Ukrainian long-term security through revenue investments aimed at enhancing the country’s “safety, security, and prosperity.” The deal also seeks to prevent U.S. interests from cashing out their shares without Ukrainian consent, establishing the U.S. as both a partner and stakeholder.
Trump's plan is enticing to many American companies eager to tap Ukraine's rare minerals, as pointed out by Niall Ferguson, the British-American historian who emphasized the potential commercial benefits for the U.S. defense and technology sectors. Amidst America footing the bill for about €114 billion or roughly 0.5% of its GDP on aid to Ukraine—including €64 billion for military assistance—there's pressure on Trump to showcase tangible returns to his supporters.
The evolution of the deal has shifted dramatically according to Olena Prokopenko, senior fellow for Ukraine-U.S. relations at the German Marshall Fund. Initially, she described it as having “colonial” overtones; now, it has morphed, according to her, “into a more balanced agreement.” The latest version of the deal includes explicit mentions of security provisions, addressing concerns about Putin's continued rejection of ceasefire calls—a reality Prokopenko articulates as Trump becoming “more realistic” about the power dynamics at play.
Despite the promising amendments, critics maintain the agreement's structure heavily favors U.S. economic interests at Ukraine’s expense. Ukraine is being asked to contribute 50% of the revenues from its government-owned natural resources, including minerals, oil, and gas, to create a joint investment fund, primarily under U.S. control. The lack of reciprocal commitments from the U.S. raises concerns about the equity of the partnership.
Prokopenko contends this agreement grants Ukraine “a seat at the table for peace talks.” It aligns with President Zelenskyy’s vision of collaboration on resource extraction, making it politically risky for Ukraine to back out entirely. Such actions would not only disrupt peace negotiations but also jeopardize continued military aid from the U.S., leaving Ukraine with diminished leverage.
While the U.S. stands to gain from future monetization of these resources, the deal is framed with stipulations demanding peace as the primary condition for profitability. This introduces uncertainties, especially when considering Ukraine's current military challenges against Russian aggression. Prokopenko asserts the need for “lasting peace” for the partnership to yield benefits, cautioning against the difficulties of obtaining wartime insurance for significant projects.
Trump's proposal is especially relevant against the backdrop of recent diplomatic engagements, such as French President Emmanuel Macron's failed attempts to secure concrete American security guarantees involving the Ukraine conflict. During his hurried debriefing with EU leaders, Macron revealed, “[Macron] said Trump did not give any clear promises,” illustrating the persistent ambiguity surrounding U.S. obligations.
Overall, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal highlights the complex interplay of geopolitical maneuvering, economic interests, and the quest for lasting peace amid continuing conflict. With each side eyeing advantages, the path forward for Ukraine—balancing immediate needs with long-term stability—remains fraught with challenges, yet is poised for transformative potential if managed correctly.