Trump and Zelensky were supposed to sign a ‘big’ minerals deal. Here’s what’s in it for Washington — and for Ukraine.
What happened?
On February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump are set to meet in Washington for their first face-to-face talks after a heated public dispute. The rift was sparked by U.S.-Russia negotiations that excluded Kyiv and fueled by Zelensky’s refusal to sign the initial version of a U.S.-proposed natural resources agreement.
Trump has made clear that he intends to reverse what he sees as his predecessor’s mistakes, including ending unconditional U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine. Instead, he has pushed for a deal granting American investors access to Ukraine’s natural resources — a concept Zelensky himself suggested in late 2024. However, Kyiv was unprepared for the scale of Trump’s demands.
Initially, Ukraine welcomed Washington’s interest in its rare earth metal deposits, but the proposed agreement revealed U.S. demands for $500 billion in compensation. The deal would have given the U.S. a share not only in rare earth revenues but also in other natural resources and infrastructure revenues, including port operations. As The Telegraph reported, Washington’s demands appeared even harsher than the post-WWII reparations imposed on Germany and Japan.
Zelensky refused to sign the agreement under such conditions, leading to tense exchanges with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and nearly derailing a meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance. In response, Trump, lashed out with insults and threats, insisting Ukraine owed the U.S. at least $350 billion for past military and financial aid.
Kyiv maintains that the true value of U.S. assistance is closer to $100 billion ( a much more accurate figure) — and since it was provided as grants, Ukraine has no debt to repay. Zelensky has reiterated that Kyiv is willing to sign a resource deal as a token of appreciation, but only if it is mutually beneficial and includes clear security guarantees for Ukraine.
The standoff resulted in a compromise agreement titled the “Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund.” Published by the Financial Times on February 26, the 11-point document is intentionally vague, avoiding hard commitments from either side. And while Kyiv successfully pushed back against the $500 billion demand, the final text makes no mention of concrete U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine.
Did the U.S. and Ukraine reach any concrete agreements?
Yes — one key agreement involves how revenue from the “future monetization” of Ukraine’s natural resources will be shared. Ukraine has agreed to contribute 50 percent of these revenues to a joint “Reconstruction Investment Fund.”
The funds could later be reinvested into Ukraine’s economy — not just in mineral extraction but also in other sectors that will require substantial financing during the post-war recovery.
Will the money go toward Ukraine’s recovery?
The document doesn’t provide a definitive answer. It states that the fund will accumulate and reinvest revenues “at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security, and prosperity of [the country].”
What remains unclear is whether all of these funds will be directed toward Ukraine’s economy or if a portion could end up in the U.S. budget. A final “Fund Agreement” — which both sides hope to sign once the deal’s details are settled — will reportedly clarify “future distributions.” For now, however, that question remains unresolved.
Who will manage the fund?
The fund will be jointly owned and managed by the United States and Ukraine, though the specifics — such as ownership distribution and management structure — will be determined later in the separate “Fund Agreement.”
This provision marks a negotiating win for Zelensky’s team, as Washington had initially pushed for full U.S. ownership and sole decision-making authority in early drafts of the deal.
Instead, the final document states that the “maximum percentage of [U.S.] ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests” will be set to “the extent permissible under applicable United States laws.” This phrasing may be related to legal limits on American entities that could, in theory, operate such an investment fund. For example, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) — a government agency that invests in hundreds of global infrastructure projects, including rare earth mineral exploration — is legally prohibited from holding more than a 30 percent equity stake in any project, as noted by the Financial Times.
Another key provision already included in the agreement states that neither the U.S. nor Ukraine can make any transactions involving their share of the fund without the other party’s consent.
What’s actually included in the deal? It’s not just about rare earth metals, is it?
No, it’s broader than that — but there’s still no definitive list of resources.
The agreement specifically mentions “deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials.” Based on an assessment of Ukraine’s resource potential, this could include lithium, graphite, titanium, cobalt, and certain rare earth elements, along with oil, gas, and coal.
Beyond raw materials, the fund will also generate revenue from natural resource infrastructure, such as LNG terminals and ports. A key condition already outlined in the agreement states that any assets included must be “directly or indirectly” owned by the Ukrainian government.
At the same time, Kyiv secured a major carve-out: resource deposits that already generate revenue through taxes, royalties, or licensing fees are excluded from the agreement. This suggests that state-owned companies like Ukrnafta and Naftogaz, which together posted around $850 million in profits in the first half of 2024, likely won’t be required to share proceeds from their currently developed reserves with the U.S.
On the surface, these terms seem favorable to Ukraine. But they also make the deal less attractive. Many of Ukraine’s resource deposits remain underexplored, and developing them could take years. Without proven reserves, attracting outside investment will be difficult. And from what’s known so far, the fund will essentially start from scratch — unless the U.S. provides some form of advance funding.
Then there’s the war. Many of the fund’s potential assets are in Russian-occupied territories. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is already courting the Trump administration with the prospect of jointly developing Russia’s rare earth metal reserves. It’s also possible he’s hinting at the exploitation of Ukraine’s Donbas deposits, which Russian forces seized after 2022.
What about the security guarantees Zelensky is pushing for?
The agreement contains just one sentence on the issue:
The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants [in the agreement] will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.
On February 26, Zelensky admitted this was the bare minimum he was willing to accept. He also acknowledged that the agreement fell short of the security guarantees Kyiv had originally sought.
Still, officials from Zelensky’s team told the Financial Times they remain hopeful that Trump’s stance could shift and that U.S. arms deliveries might continue if relations improve after the resource deal is signed.
