EditUkraine secures equitable minerals deal with U.S. despite Trump’s heavy-handed pressure
European Pravda Ukraine, partner of EUalive, published the full text of the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal
On 30 April Ukraine and the United States signed a landmark minerals deal, granting Washington preferential access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources while establishing a joint investment fund for the country’s reconstruction.
The agreement, announced by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, marks a significant diplomatic and economic achievement for Kyiv, particularly given the intense pressure exerted by President Donald Trump’s administration.
Svyrydenko highlighted Ukraine’s sovereignty over its resources, stating on X: “All resources on our territory and in territorial waters belong to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian state that determines what and where to extract.” She added that the agreement aligns with Ukraine’s constitution and its EU membership aspirations, with no debt obligations to the US.
On 1 May, European Pravda Ukraine, partner of EUalive, published the full text of the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal, revealing details of the agreement signed on 30 April, which establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction while granting the U.S. access to critical minerals. The outlet’s exclusive coverage, including insights into the deal’s focus on 57 minerals and its link to U.S. military aid, underscored Ukraine’s successful negotiation to retain resource control despite initial U.S. pressure
Despite initial drafts that heavily favored U.S. interests, Ukraine’s deft negotiations apparently ensured a balanced deal that preserves its sovereignty over resources and aligns with its long-term security and economic goals.
A Contentious Negotiation Process
The U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal emerged from months of fraught negotiations, shaped by Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy. Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has framed U.S. aid to Ukraine – totaling approximately $120 billion since Russia’s 2022 invasion – as a debt requiring repayment through access to Ukraine’s critical minerals, such as lithium, titanium, and rare earth elements.
Early drafts of the deal, revealed by The New York Times in February 2025, demanded that Ukraine contribute 50% of revenues from state-owned natural resources to a U.S.-managed fund, with terms that offered no security guarantees and sought to recoup up to $500 billion in past aid—an amount far exceeding actual U.S. contributions.
Tensions peaked during the infamous 28 February White House meeting, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accusing him of ingratitude and demanding he sign the deal. Zelenskyy’s refusal, citing the lack of security guarantees and the risk of “selling” Ukraine’s resources, led to a temporary suspension of U.S. aid and a diplomatic crisis.
However, subsequent negotiations, including a more conciliatory meeting at the Vatican on 26 April, and Ukraine’s hiring of U.S. law firm Hogan Lovells, paved the way for a revised agreement.
Terms of the deal: a balanced framework
The final agreement, signed in Washington on April 30, 2025, as reported by European Pravda Ukraine, represents a significant departure from earlier U.S. proposals. Key terms include:
- Joint Investment Fund: The U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund will collect revenues from new licenses for critical minerals, oil, and gas projects, with Ukraine contributing 50% of these revenues and the U.S. matching contributions through financial or military aid. The fund, managed with equal voting rights, will invest exclusively in Ukraine’s reconstruction for the first 10 years, after which profits may be distributed.
- Ukrainian Sovereignty: Ukraine retains full ownership and control over its subsoil, infrastructure, and state-owned companies like Ukrnafta and Energoatom. The deal covers only future projects, excluding existing licenses or royalties, ensuring Kyiv determines “what and where to extract.”
- No Repayment of Past Aid: Unlike initial drafts demanding $500 billion to offset prior U.S. aid, the final deal excludes reimbursement for past assistance, with future U.S. military aid counted as contributions to the fund.
- Security Implications: While the agreement lacks explicit U.S. security guarantees—a key Ukrainian demand—it signals Washington’s long-term economic stake in Ukraine’s stability. Ukrainian officials, including Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, argue that U.S. investment and corporate presence will incentivize continued support against Russian aggression.
The deal requires ratification by Ukraine’s parliament, a process Shmyhal described as a “milestone” for economic partnership. Tymofiy Mylovanov, former Ukrainian economy minister, praised the agreement on X as a “major political and diplomatic win,” noting that Ukraine resisted “overreaching” U.S. demands while securing a fair framework.
How Ukraine played its cards well
Ukraine’s success in negotiating a balanced deal under Trump’s pressure reflects strategic acumen and resilience. Zelenskyy’s refusal to sign the February draft, despite risks to U.S. aid, forced the Trump administration to soften its demands. By publicly criticizing the deal as exploitative, Ukraine rallied domestic and European support, increasing pressure on Washington.
Ukraine skilfully positioned the deal as aligning with Trump’s “America First” agenda, emphasizing U.S. access to minerals critical for batteries and technology, while securing economic benefits for Kyiv. Shmyhal’s assurance that the deal supports Ukraine’s EU candidacy further broadened its appeal.
The Ukraine-U.S. minerals deal is unlikely to significantly jeopardize Kyiv’s EU accession ambitions, as it aligns with Ukraine’s existing trade frameworks and EU-compatible economic reforms. However, certain aspects, such as potential trade policy misalignments or perceptions of prioritizing U.S. interests over EU integration, could create minor tensions if not carefully managed.
Paula Pinho, the European Commission chief spokesperson, said on 28 April that the deal would be “closely examined” for compatibility with Ukraine’s EU membership bid suggests the EU’s scrutiny continued. The absence of objections after the deal’s signature implies tacit approval, given the deal’s revised terms aligning with EU standards.
Updated: May 1, 2025 - 13:34
