The Trump administration has tabled a new, significantly expanded minerals deal with Ukraine, a move that underscores Washington’s strategic interest in the resource-rich Eastern European nation.
The proposal, details of which have been disclosed by sources familiar with the negotiations and a draft summary reportedly obtained by Reuters, offers the United States a stronger financial stake in Ukraine’s future while omitting the security guarantees Kyiv has long sought.
The revised terms of the deal go far beyond the proposals discussed in the lead-up to last month’s contentious Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
According to insiders, the deal would require Ukraine to funnel all income derived from natural resources—managed by both state and private enterprises—into a joint investment fund. This fund would be largely controlled by U.S. interests, but with minimal immediate benefit to Ukraine.
The updated agreement stands in stark contrast to earlier discussions, which envisaged a more balanced partnership. A prior version of the deal had stipulated that Ukraine would contribute 50% of its future resource extraction profits into a jointly developed investment fund. Under that framework, both nations would have collaborated on developing Ukraine’s mineral resources, a model that suggested mutual economic growth rather than Washington’s outright dominance.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has spearheaded the negotiations on behalf of the U.S., has not publicly commented on the latest developments. Meanwhile, National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt defended the initiative, asserting that the minerals deal is designed to fortify U.S.-Ukrainian ties. “The mineral deal offers Ukraine the opportunity to form an enduring economic relationship with the United States that is the basis for long-term security and peace,” Hewitt said.
Yet, conspicuously absent from the new proposal is any reference to U.S. control over Ukraine’s nuclear power plants—an aspect President Trump had previously floated. While the nuclear sector remains a sensitive issue in Ukrainian politics, the omission signals a shift in Washington’s priorities, with mineral resources now at the forefront.
President Trump has repeatedly justified the minerals deal as a mechanism to recoup the tens of billions of dollars in military and financial aid the U.S. has provided to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion three years ago. The latest draft stipulates that before Ukraine gains access to any investment profits, Washington must first recover the entirety of its financial contributions since 2022—plus an annual interest rate of 4%.
Should the deal come to fruition, Ukraine would also be required to grant the United States first purchasing rights over extracted resources. The structure of the joint investment fund would heavily favour Washington, with its five-member board composed of three U.S. representatives and only two Ukrainian appointees. Moreover, any funds generated would be converted into foreign currency and transferred abroad, placing them under American oversight via the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), a key player in the proposed administration of the fund.
A source familiar with the negotiations revealed that discussions about having the DFC manage Ukraine’s mineral revenues had been ongoing for months. If finalised, this arrangement would cement Washington’s economic influence over a crucial sector of Ukraine’s economy.
Despite Ukraine’s precarious position, President Zelenskyy has thus far refrained from outright rejecting the deal. Speaking to reporters earlier this week, he acknowledged that the U.S. had proposed a “major” new agreement, but indicated that Ukrainian officials were still evaluating its terms. In a subsequent statement, he noted that Washington had been “constantly” adjusting the deal’s provisions, though he stopped short of expressing opposition. “We do not want our friends in the United States to think that Kyiv is against this deal,” he remarked, in what appeared to be a diplomatic balancing act.
While Kyiv’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has yet to provide an official response, the absence of immediate endorsement suggests significant reservations. Critics argue that the deal would effectively cede control of Ukraine’s natural resources to the U.S. while offering few tangible benefits to Kyiv in the short term. Furthermore, the lack of security assurances—a vital concern given Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia—has raised concerns that Washington’s economic ambitions may be supplanting its strategic commitments.
The proposed deal marks a shift in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, prioritising economic leverage over security assistance. By tying mineral resource revenues to a fund controlled by Washington, the U.S. appears to be positioning itself as a primary beneficiary of Ukraine’s natural wealth. This approach risks deepening scepticism among Ukrainians, who may view the arrangement as an overreach by their Western ally.
With negotiations ongoing, the fate of the deal remains uncertain. Treasury Secretary Bessent suggested in an interview with Fox News earlier this week that Washington was pushing for swift resolution. “We have passed along a completed document for the economic partnership and hope to go to full discussions and perhaps even get signatures next week,” he said.
For now, Ukraine finds itself in a precarious position—balancing the need for U.S. support with the risks of economic subjugation. As the terms of the agreement continue to evolve, the question remains whether Kyiv will accept a deal that strengthens its economy at the potential cost of its sovereignty.
