The US Treasury Secretary has defended former President Donald Trump’s initiative for an agreement with Ukraine concerning the development of its natural resources and critical minerals. The Secretary stated that this plan aims to bolster postwar growth in Ukraine and does not involve any coercive economic tactics.
Comments made by Scott Bessent in an op-ed for the Financial Times highlight Trump administration officials’ ongoing efforts to establish what they describe as an economic partnership with Kyiv, integrating it into their broader diplomatic strategy to mediate a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine.
Up to now, Ukrainian officials have resisted US demands for such an agreement, with US representatives exerting substantial pressure on Kyiv to secure a deal. Claims persist that Trump’s recent criticisms of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, labeling him a dictator and suggesting Ukraine initiated the conflict with Russia, are tactics to pressure Kyiv into a mineral agreement.
Bessent’s op-ed disclosed elements of the US proposal, indicating that Ukraine’s income from “natural resources, infrastructure, and other assets” would funnel into a fund geared toward Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction and development, where the United States would retain economic and governance rights over future investments. However, he did not specify what portion of the mineral extraction proceeds would be directed to the fund or how much would benefit the US. Trump has advocated the deal as a means for Ukraine to repay previous US military aid.
The latest draft agreement, dated Friday and reviewed by the Financial Times, proposes a reconstruction investment fund where the US would possess a complete financial interest. Ukraine would contribute 50% of the fund’s earnings through mineral resources until its contribution reached $500 billion—a figure viewed as unacceptable by Ukrainian officials, which remains under negotiation.
Ruslan Stefanchuk, Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, mentioned on Saturday that Kyiv might start finalizing the deal from Monday. Another Ukrainian official highlighted that signing would only proceed once Kyiv obtained security assurances.
Bessent stated in his piece that the agreement would incorporate “high standards of transparency, accountability, corporate governance, and legal frameworks,” essential for attracting substantial private investment for Ukraine’s postwar growth, ensuring no room for corruption or insider deals.
Earlier this month, the US Treasury Secretary visited Ukraine for his initial international trip to promote the deal to President Zelenskyy.
Although US officials, including Trump’s National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, have asserted that an agreement is near, Ukrainian officials remain cautious. A participant in the discussions remarked, “The draft on the table now needs more work,” indicating that there are numerous requirements for Ukraine but not as many commitments from the US, rendering the current draft unsuitable for presidential approval. Discussions, extending into early morning hours, continued for a third consecutive day, with plans to persist through Saturday and likely into Sunday.
President Zelenskyy has expressed that Bessent’s original proposal is not favorable for Ukraine, as it would allocate 50% of the nation’s rare earth and critical minerals rights in return for past military aid without offering future support. Senior Ukrainian officials indicated they have been formulating a counterproposal this past week, which they discussed with the US special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, in Kyiv on Thursday and Friday. Zelenskyy desires security guarantees from the Trump administration in a new proposal before agreeing to the deal.
In the op-ed, Bessent assured that the terms of the deal would “ensure that countries not contributing to the defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty won’t benefit from its reconstruction or these investments.” He further emphasized that the US has no intentions of coercively acquiring control over Ukraine’s resources, clarifying that the US would not assume ownership of Ukraine’s physical assets nor burden Ukraine with additional debt, distancing America from the economic pressures exerted by other global powers.