
Minerals for muscle? Why Trump's Ukraine resources deal could be a sign of things to come
A landmark resources deal between the U.S. and Ukraine is expected to lay the ground for further so-called "minerals for muscle" agreements.
Washington and Kyiv signed a highly anticipated minerals deal earlier this month. The agreement, which has since been ratified by Ukrainian lawmakers, is designed to deepen economic ties, bolster Ukraine's reconstruction and position the country as a supplier of strategically important minerals to the U.S.
Long coveted by U.S. President Donald Trump, the partnership followed months of tense negotiations and came more than three years since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Ro Dhawan, CEO of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), a trade body representing roughly one-third of the global industry, said the U.S.-Ukraine deal is not the first and certainly won't be the last bilateral agreement where minerals and geopolitics mix so closely.
"I think we're likely to see more outreach to producer countries to make deals which could take the form of what I have previously called 'minerals for muscle.' So, 'give me your minerals and I'll give you security,' or other forms of trade agreement," Dhawan told CNBC by video call.
For instance, ICMM's Dhawan said he could "absolutely imagine" a deal between the U.S. and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has the world's largest reserves of cobalt, in the near future.
Natural resources could also play a pivotal role in the thawing of "pretty frosty" diplomatic ties between the U.S. and South Africa, Dhawan said, as well as the U.S. and Canada.
"We're at a turning point in the way minerals are a part of the global conversation. We've seen the first act, probably, with Ukraine, and I think there are a few more twists and turns to come in the way that this now starts to take shape," he added.
Critical minerals refer to a subset of materials considered essential to the energy transition. These minerals, which tend to have a high risk of supply chain disruption, include metals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements.
China is the undisputed leader of the critical minerals supply chain, accounting for roughly 60% of the world's production of rare earth minerals and materials. U.S. officials have previously warned that this poses a strategic challenge amid the pivot to low-carbon energy sources.
Heidi Crebo-Rediker, a senior fellow in the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. think tank, said Washington and Beijing's geopolitical rivalry has put critical minerals at the center of the U.S. national security agenda.
Assuming they are commercially recoverable, Crebo-Rediker said Ukraine's vast reserves of critical minerals and rare earth elements could "provide a future potential secure supply chain of many materials the United States needs."
Timothy Puko, director of commodities at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, said he was "a little bit skeptical" about the prospect of a wave of bilateral "minerals for muscle" agreements.
"There's certainly some truth to it. I think that's what you're seeing in Ukraine. I think that Kinshasa is very clearly trying to pursue that right now, with their cobalt-copper situation and the [Rwandan-backed] M23 rebels," Puko told CNBC by video call.
Aside from Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, however, Puko said he was "hard-pressed" to foresee any further agreements. Canada, Australia, Indonesia and several mineral-rich Latin America countries would all be unlikely to pursue minerals for muscle-type deals with the U.S., he added.
"Outside of Ukraine and DRC, and possibly not even DRC, no other country right now really wants to trade away all that midstream business. Resource nationalism is the name of the game right now and the trend is really the opposite," Puko said.
"There's definitely horse-trading to be done here. It's a huge geopolitical issue. I'm sure it's coming up right now in the ongoing bilateral trade talks but there are huge barriers to replicating what Ukraine is trying to do with a lot of other countries."
Trump's trade tariff policy and repeated calls to make Canada the 51st state has strained diplomatic ties between the neighboring countries and fueled a swell of national pride and anger at the U.S.
Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told Trump at the White House earlier this month that his country is "not for sale" — and "won't be for sale ever."
Trump replied: "Never say never."
Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a public policy think tank based in Ottawa, said Canada does not need a minerals for muscle agreement with the U.S.
"What we need is more certainty in our trade relationship. That is the biggest hurdle right now to reshoring mineral production and processing to North America in order to combat Chinese manipulation of global mineral markets," Exner-Pirot told CNBC via email.
Canada and the U.S. have developed interdependently over the course of 150 years and through world wars, Exner-Pirot said, noting that the countries are each another's largest suppliers and destinations of mineral exports.
What's more, Exner-Pirot said Canada and the U.S. already collaborate in both NATO and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). A binational organization between Canada and the U.S., NORAD is primarily responsible for aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberals under fire for rushing bill through Parliament to speed up resource projects
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's government is coming under fire for seeking to rush through a major piece of legislation that grants cabinet sweeping powers to quickly approve major projects. Government House leader Steven MacKinnon put a motion on notice Thursday that would push Bill C-5 through the House of Commons by the end of next week — leaving just one day to hear from civil society groups, stakeholders and experts. Critics charge the move is anti-democratic. In a fiery exchange in question period, Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin accused Prime Minister Mark Carney of trying to "steamroll" a bill through the House that would greatly expand his own powers. "The prime minister has no right to impose C-5 under closure when the bill gives him exceptional powers unlike anything that we've seen before," she said in French. "Is that the prime minister's intention, to bypass Parliament and govern by decree like Donald Trump?' MacKinnon pushed back by saying "Canadians and Quebecers spoke loud and clear" in the last election for action to shore up the economy, in part due to the illegal trade war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. "We are acting in a democratic way," he said, noting the bill delivers on election promises laid out clearly in the Liberal platform. The bill includes controversial provisions that could allow cabinet to skirt existing processes and laws to fast-track approvals for projects the government deems to be in the national interest. The government aims to streamline disparate processes to limit approval timelines for big projects to a maximum of two years, boosting investor confidence. When asked about the timeline at a press conference Thursday, Energy Minister Tim Hodgson said the legislation needs to pass quickly to shore up an economy being undermined by Trump's tariffs. "We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadians' jobs are at risk. Canadians' livelihoods are at risk. And quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk," Hodgson said. But NDP MP Leah Gazan said in the House of Commons foyer Thursday that the bill isn't going to build the economy out because it will trigger a series of court challenges. She called on the government to extend the time frame of the public study and do more to consult with Indigenous Peoples — something she said got shortchanged in the bill. "I'm calling on the prime minister to slow it down, to not rush a bill that has this much consequence through in five days," she said. Hodgson pointed to support for the bill from the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, which represents more than 100 First Nations seeking to have their own projects advanced, and said he is consulting privately with stakeholders. "I can tell you I've got multiple conversations going on with different rights holders and business leaders as part of my department's efforts to ensure that consultation is robust," he said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty said there will be a meeting between the Prime Minister's Office and First Nations leaders, citing the wildfires as one reason it has been delayed. "I also want to acknowledge that because there are many communities in a critical state of wildfire and evacuation, that time will be taken to have that dialog," she said. "I know that it is the intention of the Prime Minister's Office to sit down with First Nation's leadership directly and to have the economic discussion and hear from them." But Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said the drive to push the bill through quickly is "incredibly concerning" because the government has done "very little engagement" so far on such a major piece of legislation. "The biggest concern is that it's going to give cabinet the power to approve projects before they have any information about them beyond what the proponent has decided to give the government," she said. "There's a reason why we have decisions at the end of environmental assessments and regulatory processes. It's so that governments can make informed decisions about projects that have the potential to harm Canadians and to harm the environment." Stuart Trew, a senior researcher with the left-leaning think tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said the bill is "destined to end up in court" and "really bump up against the government's commitments to reconciliation with First Nations." "It seems geared to let the government ram projects through, without adequate study, without all the usual considerations about the impacts on endangered species," he said. "We should raise our eyebrows any time a government claims a national emergency in order to rush through legislation with implications as significant as this does." The legislation also looks to break down internal trade barriers and make it easier for workers to take jobs in other provinces. MacKinnon rejected a call from the Bloc Québécois this week to split the landmark legislation in two. That would have allowed the House to speed through the less contentious internal trade provisions while putting the controversial major projects portion under the microscope. Carney has vowed repeatedly to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers by Canada Day, 19 days from now. The House has been sitting for just three weeks and is currently scheduled to rise next week on June 20. MacKinnon said in a scrum on Wednesday that he has not tried to get consensus from the other parties to have the House sit any later. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press

10 minutes ago
Democrats slam military parade as Trump's multimillion-dollar 'birthday party'
Congressional Democrats and at least one high-profile Republican are slamming the multimillion-dollar cost of the Army 's 250th anniversary parade on Saturday that President Donald Trump has long sought to celebrate the military. Trump has said the cost -- projected to be as much as $45 million for the Army alone, not counting security and other expenses -- will be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." However, his critics argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth said on X. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego." The Army said it has accounted for spending between $25 million and $45 million on the parade, which will include 6,700 troops and dozens of tanks, military fighting vehicles and aircraft staged on or near the National Mall. "Money should be put in medical defense research instead of wasted on some pomp and circumstance for the president," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday. "This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve." Saturday's parade also falls on Trump's 79th birthday, and when it ends near the White House, the Army's Golden Knights parachute team will present him with an American flag, after which he'll administer the constitutional oath to Army enlistees. "We all like to enjoy a nice birthday party," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posted on X. "But most of us don't celebrate with a $45 million taxpayer-funded military parade. "Save taxpayer money. Have a birthday cake and blow out a few candles," he said. "Don't shut down the capital and roll out 60-ton tanks through the streets." "I wouldn't have done it," Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said. "We were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." Some Democrats echoed that criticism. "It's outrageous," Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said. "This is something that would happen in North Korea, not the United States of America. Donald Trump thinks he's a king. He's not. He was elected as president of the United States, and he should act as such." Army spokesman Steve Warren defended the parade, saying, "It is a lot of money, but I think that amount of money is dwarfed by 250 years of service and sacrifice that American soldiers have given this country. "We're looking at this as an opportunity to really strengthen the connection between America and her Army," he added. "So, yeah, it's a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to what we're selling." The White House this week also requested a flyover by the Air Force Thunderbirds. When asked Thursday what he hopes the public will remember about the parade, Trump said, "How great our country is, very simple, and how strong our military is." "We have the strongest military in the world," he added. The White House has not responded to requests for a total cost estimate that would include money spent on security and other arrangements. Several Republicans say they're skipping the parade due to prior commitments, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would attend and defended the display. "Washington D.C. is the safest it's ever been!!" she wrote. "I wish our great military men and women could just stay here. I am so excited for the parade celebrating the 250th anniversary of our United States Army!!" Protests of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown are planned across the country to counterprogram the parade, with the flagship "No Kings" protest occurring in Philadelphia. Nine small protests are also expected in Washington, according to the Secret Service and local officials. Trump has warned protesters will be met with "heavy force." On Friday, he disputed the characterization of him as a king. "I don't feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved," he said, adding, "No, no, we're not a king. We're not a king at all."

USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Israel attack Iran? Trump warns of 'massive conflict' over nuclear program
Will Israel attack Iran? Trump warns of 'massive conflict' over nuclear program "As long as I think there is an agreement, I don't want them going in, because I think that would blow it," Trump said of U.S.-Iran negotiations. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump reveals plans for 'Golden Dome' missile defense system President Donald Trump has unveiled plans for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system, modeled after Israel's Iron Dome, aiming to complete it by the end of his term. unbranded - Newsworthy The president also appeared to suggest an Israeli attack, or the threat of one, could help his negotiators. The U.S. pulled some diplomats out of Iraq over concerns of possible Iranian revenge strikes. Trump has also threatened to bomb Iran if diplomacy fails. WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump says he doesn't want Israel to attack Iran while he's actively negotiating an agreement that could prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on its longtime foe Iran was great enough that Trump said he ordered the evacuation of some American diplomats in the Middle East this week. "There's a chance of massive conflict. We have a lot of American people in this area, and I said, 'We got to tell them to get out,' because something could happen. Soon," Trump said at a White House event. "And I don't want to be the one that didn't give any warning, and missiles are flying into their buildings. It's possible. So I had to do it." Trump's comments came a day after the U.S. abruptly pulled some diplomats out of Iraq. A subsequent report from the New York Times said American and European officials were warning of a possible Israeli attack that could turn the region into a tinder box or undercut the Trump administration's nuclear negotiations. "As long as I think there is an agreement, I don't want them going in, because I think that would blow it. Might help it, actually. But it also could blow it," Trump told reporters on June 12. "Whether or not we get there, I can't tell you, but it will happen soon." Trump has also threatened to bomb Iran if diplomacy fails. His special envoy Steve Witkoff has been working to secure a deal to curb Iran's uranium enrichment program and plans to travel to Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of talks. Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and the head of Israel's spy agency, Mossad chief David Barnea, were also expected to meet with Witkoff. Trump spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the phone on June 9 after a meeting at Camp David with military and national security officials. The White House declined to say what the leaders discussed or who Trump met with at the presidential retreat. Then, on June 11, the administration withdrew personnel from the U.S. embassy in Iraq without explanation. The State Department said its embassies in Bahrain and Kuwait had not changed their staffing and remained fully operational. The move came as Trump said in an interview with "Pod Force One" that he was feeling less confident about an Iranian nuclear deal. However, he told reporters on June 12: "We're fairly close to an agreement. We are fairly close to a pretty good agreement. It's got to be better than pretty good, though." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard