The United States and Ukraine have reached a significant agreement granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and other valuable natural resources, according to U.S. President Donald Trump. Speaking from the White House on Tuesday, Trump confirmed the deal and revealed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to visit on Friday to finalize and sign the agreement. Describing the agreement as “a very big deal,” Trump suggested that it could be worth up to $1 trillion. He emphasized that the agreement would ensure American taxpayers “get their money back, plus,” hinting at the substantial financial commitment the U.S. has made to Ukraine during its ongoing conflict with Russia.
Trump framed the agreement as a critical step in recovering the substantial sums of money the United States has spent on Ukraine’s defense and aid. He asserted that the U.S. is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” on the war between Russia and Ukraine—an ongoing conflict that he argued should “never, ever have happened.” Trump also cited $350 billion in aid that he claimed the U.S. had already provided to Ukraine, which included military support and the resources necessary for Kyiv to continue its defense efforts. However, official figures from the U.S. Congressional Research Service indicate that Congress appropriated $174 billion for Ukraine between 2022 and 2024, raising questions about the accuracy of Trump’s claims.
The agreement comes after reports of a breakthrough between the two countries, following Zelenskyy’s earlier rejection of a previous draft. The earlier proposal would have granted the United States access to $500 billion worth of Ukrainian natural resources but did not offer the security guarantees Kyiv sought. The revised agreement, according to multiple media outlets, includes a provision where Ukraine would allocate 50 percent of the future proceeds from resource monetization to a jointly owned fund. This fund would be used to invest in various infrastructure and development projects within Ukraine. However, the draft agreement reportedly does not contain explicit security guarantees—something Kyiv had previously insisted upon as a condition for cooperation.
According to Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford, Ukrainian officials believe that Zelenskyy’s cabinet will formally recommend that he sign the agreement. This recommendation signals a shift in Kyiv’s stance, likely influenced by mounting pressure from the Trump administration. Stratford reported that Trump had applied “significant additional pressure” to secure the agreement after Zelenskyy initially rejected the deal. While the exact terms remain unclear, the fund’s structure suggests a collaborative financial arrangement, although the extent of the United States’ stake in the fund remains undetermined.
The agreement carries significant geopolitical implications. It marks a potential reset in U.S.-Ukraine relations following a period of tension and public disputes. Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his sharp criticism of Zelenskyy have caused concern in Kyiv and across European capitals. Trump recently called Zelenskyy a “dictator” for suspending elections following Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. He also accused the Ukrainian leader of prolonging the conflict to maintain what he described as a “gravy train” of U.S. aid. These comments raised concerns that Trump might prioritize a swift resolution to the conflict on terms favorable to Moscow, potentially jeopardizing Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Matthew Sussex, a visiting fellow at the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, noted that the revised agreement reflects a softening of the United States’ initial demands. “As I understand it, the U.S. has considerably watered down its demands. That makes it more palatable to Kyiv, even though there is no security guarantee attached: essentially Ukraine gets nothing, but doesn’t have to give much either,” Sussex told Al Jazeera. This perspective suggests that while Ukraine retains some control over its resources, it does not gain the formal defense commitments it had sought.
The stakes of the agreement are particularly high given Ukraine’s significant reserves of rare earth minerals. According to data from the United Nations, Ukraine possesses approximately five percent of the world’s known reserves of these critical materials. Rare earth minerals—including lanthanum, cerium, and praseodymium—are essential components in the manufacturing of advanced electronics, electric vehicle batteries, and high-performance magnets. Control over these resources is strategically important for the United States, which seeks to diversify its supply chain and reduce its dependence on China, the world’s dominant supplier of rare earth elements.
The Financial Times, which first reported the deal, highlighted that the precise size of the United States’ stake in the jointly owned fund has yet to be determined. The deal’s structure suggests a revenue-sharing arrangement in which profits from future mineral extraction and commercialization would be split between the two nations, with Ukraine’s portion reinvested domestically. However, the absence of explicit U.S. security guarantees remains a significant point of contention. Without such guarantees, critics argue that Ukraine’s immediate defense needs are being sidelined in favor of longer-term economic gains.
The agreement’s timing also coincides with ongoing debates in Washington about the future of U.S. support for Ukraine. Trump’s decision to pursue the deal signals a shift toward a transactional approach in which financial interests and resource access are prioritized over traditional security commitments. For Ukraine, the agreement represents a calculated move to maintain U.S. support while preserving a degree of sovereignty over its natural resources. Yet, concerns remain that without stronger security assurances, the deal could leave Ukraine vulnerable as the conflict with Russia continues.
As the world awaits Zelenskyy’s anticipated visit and the formal signing of the agreement, the geopolitical implications of the deal extend beyond U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement could redefine how the United States engages with its allies in conflict zones, balancing economic interests with strategic commitments. For Ukraine, the outcome could shape its future not only in terms of economic recovery but also in its ongoing struggle for sovereignty and security.
