The Trump administration is considering a simplified minerals agreement with Ukraine, aiming to secure a quick deal before negotiating detailed terms, according to sources familiar with the matter.

This move follows Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's rejection of a previous U.S. proposal that sought to grant Washington a 50% stake in Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves.

The rejected agreement would have given the U.S. access to key resources such as graphite, uranium, titanium, and lithium—essential for industries including electric vehicle production. Zelenskiy deemed the proposal overly focused on American interests and lacking necessary security guarantees for Ukraine. “I can't sell our country,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Strategic and political stakes

Trump’s push for a minerals deal comes as he weighs further military support for Kyiv and potential efforts to mediate peace talks with Russia in the ongoing three-year war. The urgency stems from Trump’s desire to demonstrate to the American public that U.S. aid to Ukraine is yielding financial returns. According to sources, he is pressing for mineral concessions valued at $500 billion as a form of compensation for past U.S. military assistance.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, is in Kyiv this week to discuss a revised proposal. Zelenskiy confirmed he would meet Kellogg on Thursday, emphasizing that “cooperation with America must be constructive.”

Despite ongoing negotiations, tensions between the two leaders have escalated. Trump labeled Zelenskiy “a dictator without elections” following the Ukrainian leader’s remarks that Trump was influenced by Russian disinformation. The strained relationship raises questions about the feasibility of a long-term minerals deal.

Challenges and alternative approaches

Sources suggest that Trump’s team may now pursue a phased approach, securing an initial agreement while deferring complex details such as ownership shares and revenue distribution. This strategy could circumvent legal and logistical challenges and allow time for further negotiations.

Experts note that while the U.S. has not historically engaged in resource-for-aid swaps, China has effectively used similar strategies to secure access to critical minerals worldwide. “The U.S. has not historically used natural resource-for-aid swaps, but it's a tried and tested tool in China's minerals playbook,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ukraine, meanwhile, remains open to a revised deal that acknowledges U.S. investments while appearing less exploitative than the original proposal. Tyson Barker, former U.S. deputy special envoy for Ukraine’s economic recovery, noted that Kyiv is willing to provide the U.S. with privileged access to mineral resources, recognizing America’s substantial financial support during the war.

However, Ukraine may also need to consider offering similar terms to other key allies, including Canada, the UK, Japan, and the European Union. Barker warned that any agreement could be complicated by Russia’s control over parts of Ukraine rich in critical minerals, including lithium deposits. The fate of these resources remains uncertain as the war continues.

Copied