A Ukraine Minerals Deal Is Not the Win Trump Thinks It Is

One good thing that came from the spat between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky last week at the White House was that it seemed to put a minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine in jeopardy.

Now, unfortunately, cooler heads seem to be prevailing.

Zelensky said on Tuesday that he is “ready to sign” the deal and Trump has expressed his appreciation for Ukraine's willingness to do so. Officials from both countries have indicated that they will meet in Saudi Arabia next week to discuss the war in Ukraine and the minerals deal.

From what we know, the deal would create a fund from sales of Ukrainian minerals for post-war reconstruction of Ukraine, repay the U.S. for aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, and create opportunities for U.S. mining companies that will purportedly reduce U.S. mineral dependence on China. American officials have hailed the agreement as a “co-investment” that’s a “win-win” for both the U.S. and Ukraine.

Finding ways for Ukraine to rebuild using its own resources is a good thing, as is creating opportunities for U.S. businesses abroad. But Trump needs to beware of the minerals trap—the costly, no-holds-barred pursuit of rare-earth minerals that sometimes gets great powers into trouble strategically.

The allure of resources was one reason U.S. troops continued to fight and die in Afghanistan long after it stopped making strategic sense. It may also be why U.S. troops are still in Syria under dicey conditions despite completing the mission to defeat the Islamic State in 2019; Trump said that year that American forces would stay behind “only for the oil.”

Russia, too, has fallen victim to the minerals trap of late in Africa. It faces the dangers of overstretch as its soldiers die in low-grade nation-building missions to maintain access to African minerals. In the last six months alone, close to 100 Russian soldiers have died in Mali, all to protect mines. Minerals are also an under-appreciated reason for Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has come of course with a staggeringly high toll for Moscow.

Instead of obsessing over getting repaid by Ukraine, Trump needs to keep U.S. security interests in view and carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing Ukrainian minerals.

On the benefits side, the gains may not be that great. There are a lot of unknowns about Ukrainian minerals.

The U.N. says Ukraine holds 5% of the world’s rare earth minerals, including 22 of the 34 most critical for national security. But assessments of Ukrainian minerals are based on outdated Soviet-era data and models that may not be accurate.

Additionally, the investment and ramp-up time to get mines running (on average 18 years) are enormous. Location is a big problem too. Some 40% of the mineral deposits are estimated to be in eastern Ukraine. That’s been ground zero for the war since 2022 and armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed separatists since 2014. U.S. mining companies should be leery about making costly, long-term investments in the eastern Donbas region.

On top of the questionable economic benefits, the costs of securing Ukrainian minerals could be exorbitant. If U.S. companies invest, they’ll need protection from attacks by Russia and its local proxies. Trump officials say that the mere presence of U.S. workers on Ukrainian soil will deter Russia and its proxies because of the fear of killing Americans. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said recently, “The more assets that U.S. companies have on the ground, the more security it creates for the Ukrainian people.”

This is wishful thinking. Aside from ethical questions about using U.S. miners and engineers as a security measure, deterrence doesn’t really work this way. History shows that autocratic states like Russia are only deterred by a strong counterforce from a rival that balances it and threatens its survival.

While offering no such counterforce, U.S. miners and engineers would offer juicy targets for Russian special forces or pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine who are disgruntled with Kyiv or U.S. mining efforts. If attacks come, Washington will feel pressure to respond—out of anger, to maintain credibility, or both. The U.S. might then give Ukraine the security guarantee Zelensky has been asking for—or worse, put U.S. troops on the ground to protect the mines. Both are things Trump is currently (and rightly) saying the U.S. should stay away from.

In the end, U.S. leaders need a big dose of pragmatism when it comes to Ukraine’s minerals. There are plenty of other friendly states and territories—Canada, Greenland, Australia, Norway, Japan, and Finland, for instance—with an abundance of rare-earth minerals that could strike partnerships with Washington. As for Ukraine, its minerals are not worth the risk to U.S. security.  

Trump, ever the deal-maker, should spot a bad one for what it is.