The United States and Ukraine signed a minerals agreement on April 30th, establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund to support Ukraine’s economic recovery and reconstruction post-war.
The investment fund is co-managed by both nations with equal partnership, ensuring neither has a dominant vote. Ukraine contributes 50% of revenues from new licenses for 55 critical minerals such as: titanium, lithium, rare earth elements, as well as oil, and gas, while existing projects like Naftogaz and Ukrnafta are excluded. The US contributes financially and through new military assistance, counted as capital contributions.
Ukraine retains full sovereignty over its natural resources and decides what and where to extract. The US gains preferential access to negotiate offtake rights for minerals on market-based terms, not direct ownership or repayment for past aid (initially proposed as $500 billion).
The fund aims to attract global investment for Ukraine’s infrastructure, energy, and mineral sectors, with profits reinvested in Ukraine for at least the first decade.
The deal lacks explicit US security guarantees, a priority for Ukraine, but affirms a “long-term strategic alignment” and US support for Ukraine’s security and global integration, framed as incentivizing US interest to protect investments.
Negotiations were tense, with earlier US drafts demanding repayment for $175B in aid. The final deal reflects Ukraine’s diplomatic pushback and aligns with its EU integration goals. It was unanimously ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament.
But the deal may not be as advantageous for the U.S. as promoted. Unlike Trump’s initial demand for $500 billion in mineral revenues, the final deal grants no direct ownership or guaranteed revenue. The US only negotiates offtake rights and Ukraine retains full control over extraction. The 50% revenue share applies only to new projects which may not yield returns for decades, if at all. New mines potentially take 10–20 years to develop, costing $500 million to $1 billion per mine and separation plant. Many deposits are in Russian-occupied or contested areas. Ukraine’s mineral reserves, estimated at 5% of global supply, lack modern assessments and the economic value of these resources remains speculative. .
Additionally, the US lacks sufficient domestic infrastructure to refine these minerals, risking reliance on third-party processors, possibly even China. The deal’s structure, resembling China’s resource-for-aid model, sets a precedent that could complicate future US aid policies, allies may view grants as non-repayable. The agreement’s classification as a “sole executive agreement” avoids congressional oversight.
The minerals deal secures strategic access to critical minerals, aligning with Trump’s goal of reducing China’s dominance and supporting a peace process. However, its long-term, uncertain payoff, high investment risks, limited U.S. control, and potential geopolitical and domestic costs suggest it may not deliver the immediate economic or strategic wins promised. For America, the deal’s success hinges on Ukraine’s stability, investor confidence, and the U.S. developing domestic refining capacity, none of which are guaranteed in the near term. Ukraine, by contrast, benefits from retaining sovereignty and securing reconstruction funds without debt obligations, making it a huge diplomatic win for Kyiv.