U.S. Announces Deal to Share Ukraine’s Mineral Wealth

 

U.S. Announces Deal to Share Ukraine’s Mineral Wealth

 

The Trump administration did not immediately provide details about the agreement, and it was not clear what it meant for the future of U.S. military support for Ukraine.

 

Alan Rappeport Michael Crowley Andrew E. Kramer Kim Barker

By Alan RappeportMichael CrowleyAndrew E. Kramer and Kim Barker

Alan Rappeport and Michael Crowley reported from Washington, and Andrew E. Kramer and Kim Barker from Kyiv.

 

Published April 30, 2025

Updated May 1, 2025, 12:38 a.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/world/europe/ukraine-minerals-deal-trump.html

 

The United States will share future revenues from Ukraine’s mineral reserves under a deal announced by the Trump administration on Wednesday that creates a joint investment fund between the countries.

 

The agreement comes after months of fraught negotiations as the United States tries to broker an end to Ukraine’s three-year war with Russia. It is intended to give President Trump a personal stake in the country’s fate while addressing his concerns that the United States has provided Kyiv with a blank check to try to withstand Russia’s invasion.

 

“This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine over the long term,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement. “President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine.”

 

He added: “And to be clear, no state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

 

The Trump administration did not immediately provide details about the agreement, and it was not clear what it meant for the future of American military support for Ukraine. One person familiar with the negotiations, discussing them on the condition of anonymity, said the final deal does not include explicit guarantees of future U.S. security assistance. Another said the United States rejected that idea early in the process. Despite the fanfare, the deal will have little significance if fighting between Ukraine and Russia persists.

 

But Ukraine’s supporters hope the agreement might lead Mr. Trump to see the country as something more than a money pit and an obstacle to improved relations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

 

The concept of giving the United States a stake in Ukraine’s minerals was first proposed to Mr. Trump by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, during a meeting at Trump Tower last September.

 

While the announcement made no mention of Ukraine’s minerals, a Treasury Department spokesman said that the deal did refer to the natural resources pact that had been the subject of negotiations.

 

The Treasury Department said that the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation would work with Ukraine to finalize the details of the agreement.

 

In a post on Telegram, Ukraine’s prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, wrote that the two countries would have equal voting rights over the fund and that Ukraine would retain full control over its subsoil, infrastructure and natural resources. It also said that profits from the investment fund would be reinvested in Ukraine.

 

“Thanks to this agreement, we will be able to attract significant resources for reconstruction, start economic growth, and receive the latest technologies from partners and a strategic investor in the United States,” Mr. Shmyhal said, according to a translation of his post.

 

In Washington, several of Ukraine’s allies breathed a limited sigh of relief, calling the deal a notable improvement over earlier versions — and a sign that Kyiv can work constructively with Mr. Trump.

 

“They got a much better minerals deal” than the one first proposed, said William B. Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv. “The Americans took a lot of the Ukrainians’ suggestions.”

 

“A good sign for cease-fire negotiations,” Mr. Taylor added.

 

A former U.S. official familiar with the negotiations said that the Trump administration had rebuffed at least one Ukrainian effort to include explicit security guarantees, such as the continuation of U.S. military aid to Kyiv.

 

But the former official said the agreement would serve the important purpose of building good will with Mr. Trump, and giving him an economic interest in the country’s survival and stability.

 

The deal had been delayed after an explosive meeting in the Oval Office in late February between President Trump and Mr. Zelensky. In the two months since then, the major sticking point in the negotiations centered on whether the American aid given to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022 would be treated as debt that Ukraine needed to repay.

 

Got a confidential news tip? The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists.

 

Mr. Trump said that Ukraine should repay the money. Ukrainian officials said agreeing to do so would financially punish the country for generations.

 

Ukraine initially proposed drawing American investment into mining in Ukraine as an incentive for the United States to back any peace deal with security guarantees to prevent Russian aggression in the future.

 

But talks on the deal were contentious from their start in February. Besides saying that Ukraine needed to repay the United States for its help, Mr. Trump has also said that Ukraine should look to Europe, not the United States, for any security guarantees.

 

Earlier drafts had swiveled between what critics called a brazen extortion of Ukraine by the Trump administration and versions that included points sought by Ukraine, such as references to U.S. support for postwar security guarantees. Without them, Ukraine says, Russia could quickly violate any cease-fire or restart the war after regrouping and rearming.

 

Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky were meant to sign a deal at the White House in February. But instead of signing it, Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated the Ukrainian leader in front of TV cameras, saying he was not grateful enough for U.S. assistance. Mr. Zelensky was asked to leave.

 

The Trump administration then briefly suspended the delivery of all U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine. Mr. Trump said Mr. Zelensky “should be more appreciative” to restart negotiations.

 

Mr. Zelensky came forward with an overture the next day, calling the Oval Office meeting “regrettable.”

 

Some in and outside Ukraine have seen the deal as nothing more than the United States taking advantage of Ukraine’s reliance on American weaponry and financial support to win control of valuable natural resources, without offering strong guarantees in return. American negotiators have said that U.S. investment would deter future aggression.

 

In a memorandum of intent to conclude the deal, signed on April 16, Ukraine and the United States outlined an agreement to form a fund for investment in postwar rebuilding.

 

In addition to opening opportunities for U.S. companies in mining, oil or natural gas, the fund could steer reconstruction work, expected to be a multibillion-dollar business if a cease-fire is reached, to American companies.

 

But Mr. Zelensky has made clear that the minerals agreement is not an end in itself. Wrapping up the deal is aimed at clearing the way to more consequential talks on U.S. military backing and on the terms of a possible cease-fire with Russia, he said.

 

“We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” Mr. Zelensky said in March in a post on X.

 

Ukrainian authorities say the country holds deposits of more than 20 critical minerals; one consulting firm valued them as being worth several trillion dollars. But they may not be easy to extract, and the Soviet-era maps outlining where the critical deposits are have never been modernized nor have they all been thoroughly vetted.

 

Ukraine now earns about $1 billion a year in natural resources royalties, far below the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr. Trump said he expected the United States to gain from the agreement.

 

The revenue-sharing deal comes at a perilous moment for Ukraine: Russian forces have seized the advantage on the battlefield, and Mr. Trump has drawn closer to Mr. Putin.

 

A cease-fire deal proposed by the United States — at least the terms that have been made public — favors Russia. It would force Kyiv to abandon its aspirations of joining NATO, would offer Ukraine only vague security guarantees and would see the United States officially recognizing Crimea as Russian. Ukraine has rejected that deal.

 

The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to walk away from peace negotiations. On Sunday, Mr. Trump said he wanted a cease-fire deal in two weeks or less — later on, he said a little more time might be acceptable.

 

But Mr. Trump has also insisted that the minerals deal needed to be signed. On Friday, he said Ukraine was at least three weeks late in signing the minerals agreement with the U.S. “Hopefully, it will be signed IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote on Truth Social.

 

There was some uncertainty about the deal on Wednesday, as Ukrainian officials arrived in Washington and indicated that they were seeking some late changes.

 

During a cabinet meeting at the White House, Mr. Bessent expressed optimism that the agreement, which he said was reached in principle over the weekend, would soon be signed.

 

“The Ukrainians decided last night to make some last-minute changes,” Mr. Bessent said. “We’re sure that they will reconsider that and we are ready to sign this afternoon if they are.”

 

Cassandra Vinograd, Constant Méheut and Oleksandra Mykolyshyn contributed reporting.

 

Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter for The Times, based in Washington. He covers the Treasury Department and writes about taxes, trade and fiscal matters.

 

Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state.

 

Andrew E. Kramer is the Kyiv bureau chief for The Times, who has been covering the war in Ukraine since 2014.

 

Kim Barker is a Times reporter writing in-depth stories about the war in Ukraine.