Connect with us

World

Trump Ties Himself to Future of Ukraine With Minerals Deal

Published

on

Trump Ties Himself to Future of Ukraine With Minerals Deal

The minerals deal signed by the United States and Ukraine on Wednesday could bring untold money into a joint investment fund between the two countries that would help rebuild Ukraine whenever the war with Russia ends.

But Ukraine’s untapped resources that are the subject of the deal will take years to extract and yield profits. And those could fail to deliver the kind of wealth that President Trump has long said they would.

It is not yet clear how the nine-page deal, the text of which Ukraine’s government made public on Thursday, will work in practice. Many specifics need to be worked out, but the deal will set up an investment fund, jointly managed by Kyiv and Washington.

Although the Trump administration had wanted Kyiv to use its mineral wealth to repay past U.S. military assistance, the final text removes the idea of treating that aid as debt. ​The deal also seemed to specifically keep the door open for Ukraine to eventually join the European Union, a move that neither the United States nor Russia has opposed.

There was no mention of a security guarantee — which Ukraine had long sought to prevent Russia from regrouping after any cease-fir​e. But the deal does mean that the United States could send more military aid to Ukraine if a peace deal is not reached.

Advertisement

The much-anticipated signing of the agreement has almost certainly accomplished one thing that seemed almost impossible two months ago: It has tied Mr. Trump to Ukraine’s future.

“This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine over the long term,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in announcing the agreement on Wednesday.

Analysts agreed on Thursday that the deal could guarantee Mr. Trump’s interest in Ukraine now that he is publicly invested.

“He’s a businessman — he always does the math,” said Volodymyr Fesenko, a leading political analyst in Kyiv. “His business mind-set shapes his approach to politics. So his motivation in the agreement could help maintain U.S. interest in Ukraine. How this will work out in practice, only time will tell.”

Ukraine’s Parliament still has to ratify the agreement, which will probably happen in the next 10 days, officials said on Thursday.

Advertisement

In the end, it appears that Ukraine managed to get some of what it wanted, but not everything. The notable omission was the absence of a security guarantee.

“The agreement has changed significantly,” President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said in a social-media post on Thursday evening. He added, “Now it is a truly equal agreement that creates an opportunity for investments in Ukraine.”

The investment fund will be financed with revenues from new projects in critical minerals, oil and gas — and not from projects that are already operating. In theory, it would be a 50-50 partnership in which Ukraine and the United States each would put the same amount into the fund and run it equally.

Anna Skorokhod, a Ukrainian Parliament member from an opposition political party, said she was briefed about the deal at a government meeting on Thursday. Ms. Skorokhod said she was told the Americans would put money into the fund — and the equivalent dollar amount of what any future military aid to Ukraine would cost.

The Ukrainians will put money into the fund from mining licenses issued for investors and royalties from the mineral resources developed under the deal. Half of that money will go into the Ukrainian budget; half will go into the joint investment fund. Senior Ukrainian officials confirmed that understanding.

Advertisement

Ms. Skorokhod said she was hesitant to support the deal because it lacked specifics. “It looks good, but we don’t know if it’s true or it’s a fairy tale for us to vote,” she said.

The fund would be established by both governments and managed by a limited-liability company formed in Delaware and run by three Ukrainians and three Americans, Ms. Skorokhod said. Profits would go to rebuild Ukraine after the war for the first 10 years; after that, it’s not clear what would happen with the profits.

The final terms will be detailed in future agreements.

The signing of the deal on Mr. Trump’s 100th day in office was the latest twist in his ever-shifting approach to the war, which Russia started with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Mr. Trump has falsely blamed Kyiv for instigating the war and seemed to find more of a kinship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia than with anyone in Ukraine. He has repeatedly questioned why the United States became Kyiv’s biggest ally under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. And he has made no secret of his irritation with Mr. Zelensky and Kyiv’s requests for more military assistance.

Advertisement

The nadir of the relationship between Ukraine and the United States came on Feb. 28, when Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump were initially expected to sign a profit-sharing minerals deal in the Oval Office. The meeting was a disaster. Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly castigated Mr. Zelensky, who was abruptly asked to leave the White House. In the fallout, the Trump administration temporarily suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

But Mr. Trump has also repeatedly said he wants to end the war, even campaigning on the promise he would do so in 24 hours. He has since said he was not being literal.

As the Trump administration has pressured both Russia and Ukraine to agree to a peace deal — or at the least, a 30-day cease-fire — Ukraine has tried to look like the reasonable party. Mr. Zelensky, who has worked to smooth relations with the Trump administration after the Oval Office debacle, immediately agreed to the idea of an unconditional 30-day truce; Mr. Putin did not.

Still, for Ukraine, the minerals deal offered an opportunity for some leverage, even as critics described it as extortion.

The Ukrainian government initially highlighted the country’s mineral holdings to the Trump administration, hoping to draw some investment and to help solidify the relationship between the two countries.

Advertisement

Ukrainian officials say the country holds deposits of more than 20 critical minerals; one consulting firm valued them at several trillion dollars. But the minerals may not be easy to extract, and the Soviet-era maps identifying the locations of the critical deposits have never been modernized nor necessarily thoroughly vetted.

Kyiv had desperately wanted the deal to include some kind of security guarantee from the United States. Without one, officials feared, Russia could violate any cease-fire — which Moscow has done before.

Mr. Trump, though, has said that having a joint investment fund with the United States would be a security guarantee in its own right — that if U.S. companies and the U.S. government were invested in Ukraine’s future, that alone will deter Russia.

In many ways, despite all the back-and-forth, the deal signed on Wednesday with little fanfare resembled the one that fell apart in February.

Reaction to the deal was mixed in Ukraine on Thursday.

Advertisement

Vira Zhdan, 36, who lives in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, which frequently comes under Russian attack, said the deal could unfairly siphon off money from Ukrainian resources to U.S. investors.

“These are snares that tighten around us and drag our country into a deeper and deeper pit,” she said. “We live here and now, but it will be our descendants who have to deal with the consequences. This will, undoubtedly, leave a significant mark on them.”

But Svitlana Mahmudova-Bardadyn, 46, who lives in the Sumy region near the border with Russia, said she hoped the deal meant Ukraine would receive more U.S. support — like weapons. She also said she hoped “that this full-scale war will finally end, that things will get better for us.”

That all remained to be seen on Thursday, with the text of the agreement vague and Ukrainian officials staying mum on any promises that might have been made.

Instead, the deal’s language referred to “an expression of a broader, long-term strategic alignment” between the two countries, “a tangible demonstration of the United States of America’s support” for Ukraine’s security and reconstruction. And it made it clear who would not stand to gain.

Advertisement

The agreement says the United States and Ukraine want to ensure that countries “that have acted adversely to Ukraine in the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine” once peace is reached — in other words, Russia.

Oleksandra Mykolyshyn contributed reporting.

World

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

Published

on

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

The United States military last week extended its blockade on vessels coming in and out of Iranian ports to the waters of the wider world, declaring that it would pursue any ship aiding Iran, regardless of location on the high seas or flag.

The U.S. “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday, noting that the American troops beyond the Middle East will engage in operations to thwart Iranian shipping.

The extension of the blockade comes as the economically vital Strait of Hormuz remains all but closed to commercial traffic and the two-week cease-fire between the United States and Iran nears an end. The move aligns longstanding American economic policies targeting Iran with the current military campaign against it, maritime and military law experts say.

But it raises a host of legal and practical questions.

“War is a messy thing not just on the combat side but under national and international law,” said James R. Holmes, chair of maritime strategy at the Naval War College.

Advertisement

“From a legal standpoint, a blockade is an act of war, so the blockade probably is legal to the extent Operation Epic Fury is,” he said using the name of the U.S. military campaign against Iran.

Since Congress has not declared war against Iran, no formal state of war exists between the United States and the Islamic Republic. But Mr. Holmes noted that “undeclared wars are more the rule than the exception in U.S. history,” with joint resolutions of Congress, United Nations Security Council resolutions and NATO decisions invoked to justify fighting.

“This campaign may be more unilateral than most, but it is not without precedent,” he said.

Under international law, the legality of the blockade is “more ambiguous,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank in Washington.

A state-organized rally in support of the supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran on Friday.Credit…Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

For a blockade to be legal, Ms. Kavanagh said, it must be “effective,” meaning that it is both enforceable and enforced. Some would argue that a “‘global blockade’ is not permissible in conception” because it is overly broad, she said.

Advertisement

Still, expansive blockades have taken place throughout history, including during World War II, when states enforced naval blockades worldwide other than in neutral territorial seas. Over the centuries before that, the British blockaded France throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and during the War of American Independence, the colonies and their allies raided British shipping as far away as the Indian Ocean.

Enforcing expansive blockades is difficult, however.

“The seven seas are a big place, and the largest navy or coast guard is tiny by comparison,” Mr. Holmes said. Whether the U.S. blockade ultimately is deemed “effective,” legally speaking, will depend on whether the U.S. has enough assets like ships, aircraft, boarding crews and intelligence gathering to enforce it.

The blockade does not have to be “airtight” to meet the legal test, Mr. Holmes said, and assessing its effectiveness will be tough for outside observers in any case.

Enforcement may also have to be somewhat selective, he suggested.

Advertisement

“Now, it is possible our leadership might quietly let a ship proceed when it suits the national interest,” Mr. Holmes said. “For instance, with a summit coming up between President Trump and General Secretary Xi” — Mr. Trump is to meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in May — “Washington might not want to ruffle feathers by obstructing China’s oil imports.”

The expanded blockade is part of a longstanding economic campaign against Iran, but it represents something of a tactical change for the Trump administration.

Earlier in the war, the United States temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil at sea to ease the pressure on global energy prices. And before imposing a blockade on Iranian ports last week, the U.S. allowed Iranian tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz for the same reason.

Now Washington seems to be returning its focus to keeping pressure on Iran.

“The blockade is a wartime extension of existing U.S. economic sanctions against the Iranian regime,” said James Kraska, professor of international maritime law and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. In peacetime, he said, the sanctions were a “powerful tool to weaken the Iranian economy.” Now, he said, the blockade serves as a “kinetic expansion.”

Advertisement

General Caine’s announcement about the expanded naval blockade came one day after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced “Operation Economic Fury,” an effort he called the “financial equivalent” of a bombing campaign. It includes secondary sanctions on institutions internationally, like banks, that have dealings with Iran.

The expanded blockade “marks a notable escalation by the United States,” said Ms. Kavanagh.

Still, she said, it is unlikely to significantly change Iranian calculations.

“For Iran, this war is existential and it is not going to cave easily or quickly,” she said. “Economic pressure may work over the very long term, but Trump seems too impatient for a deal to wait it out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Deadly shooting at historic tourist site leaves one dead, several injured as motive unclear

Published

on

Deadly shooting at historic tourist site leaves one dead, several injured as motive unclear

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Canadian woman was shot and killed Monday, and several others were injured, before a gunman took his own life at Mexico’s popular Teotihuacan pyramids. 

Mexican officials said that four people were wounded by gunfire and two others sustained injuries from falls. Among the injured were tourists from Colombia, Russia, and Canada, according to local government reports via The Associated Press.

A firearm, a bladed weapon, and live cartridges were found at the scene, Mexico’s Security Cabinet confirmed on social media.

The Pyramid of the Moon and the Pyramid of the Sun are seen along with smaller structures lining the Avenue of the Dead in Teotihuacan, Mexico, on March 19, 2020. A gunman killed a Canadian tourist and injured several other before taking his own life at the popular site, authorities said Monday. (Rebecca Blackwell/AP)

Advertisement

“Our thoughts are with their family and loved ones, and consular officials are in touch to provide assistance,” Canada’s foreign ministry said in a social media post. 

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum wrote on social media that the shooting would be thoroughly investigated and that she was in contact with the Canadian Embassy.

TOURISTS TRAPPED IN PUERTO VALLARTA RECOUNT CARTEL RETALIATION AFTER EL MENCHO KILLED

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum speaks during her morning press conference at the National Palace in Mexico City on Jan. 5, 2026. (Raquel Cunha/Reuters)

“What happened today in Teotihuacan deeply pains us,” she wrote. “I express my most sincere solidarity with the affected individuals and their families.”

Advertisement

MAJOR DRUG LORD ‘EL MENCHO’ KILLED IN MEXICAN MILITARY OPERATION WITH U.S. INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT

Sheinbaum said she has instructed the Security Cabinet to investigate the events and provide all necessary support to the victims.

People visit the Pyramid of the Sun in the pre-Hispanic city of Teotihuacan near Mexico City, Mexico, on March 21, 2024, following the spring equinox. (Henry Romero/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Personnel from the Secretariat of the Interior and the Secretariat of Culture are already heading to the site to provide assistance and accompaniment, along with local authorities,” she said. “I am closely following the situation, and we will continue to provide timely updates through the Security Cabinet.”

Advertisement

The pre-Hispanic city, located just outside Mexico City, was once one of the most significant cultural centers in Mesoamerica.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Canada’s foreign ministry for comment.

Continue Reading

World

‘Predators’: Amnesty slams Netanyahu Putin, Trump, as human rights decline

Published

on

‘Predators’: Amnesty slams Netanyahu Putin, Trump, as human rights decline

London, United Kingdom – Israel, Russia and the United States are leading the destruction of global human rights, Amnesty International has said, describing the three countries’ leaders as “voracious predators” intent upon economic and political domination.

“A global environment where primitive ferocity could flourish has been long in the making,” Agnes Callamard, the head of the global rights group, wrote in an annual report on the state of the world’s human rights that was released on Tuesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

In 2025, “sharp U-turns were taken away from the international order that had been imagined out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the utter destruction of world wars, and constructed slowly and painfully, albeit insufficiently, over these past 80 years,” she said.

In a news conference on Monday in London, Callamard said that most governments tend to appease the “predators” rather than confront them.

“Some even thought to imitate the bullies and the looters,” she said.

Advertisement

Spain, however, which is an outlier in Europe for its criticism of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and US-Israeli attacks on Iran, “is standing above the double standard that is destroying the international system”, Callamard said.

She argued that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who in 2022 sent his forces into neighbouring Ukraine, have had an “absolutely dramatic” impact on the world.

Their conduct is “emboldening all of those that are tempted by similar behaviours,” said Callamard. “It is allowing for the multiplication of copycats around the world, and therefore what we are confronting now is much more aggressive and ferocious than what we had to confront three or four years ago.”

‘Authoritarian practices have intensified worldwide’

Amnesty’s review of the state of the world’s human rights makes for grim reading, documenting attacks on fundamental civil liberties in most nations.

“Authoritarian practices have intensified worldwide”, the report reads, before running through abuses alleged in countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe in 400 pages.

Advertisement

Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Russia’s “crimes against humanity” in Ukraine, and the US-Israeli war on Iran were noted as examples of conflict in which international laws have been ignored.

In a section on repression, the United Kingdom is blamed for cracking down on the Palestine solidarity movement and Palestine Action, the direct-action group that targets sites associated with the Israeli military and is currently fighting a legal battle against its UK proscription as a “terrorist” organisation.

Afghanistan’s Taliban was responsible for further gender-based discrimination in 2025, the report noted, citing measures excluding women from education and work, while Nepalese authorities were said to have failed to investigate instances of gender-based violence against Dalit women.

Amnesty’s report comes as multiple conflicts rage across the world.

The US-Israeli assault on Iran has killed more than 3,000 people, while Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed nearly 2,400. In Gaza, the confirmed number of people killed in Israeli attacks since October 2023 has surpassed 72,500 as the decimated territory is continually threatened by Israeli bombardment. In Ukraine, more than 15,000 have been killed since Russia’s full-scale invasion began more than four years ago.

Advertisement

Conflicts in the Middle East are a “product of the descent into lawlessness, made possible by a vision of the world in which war-making and the killings of civilians are normalised”, said Callamard.

“No effective steps have been taken against Israel for its repeated, constant violation of basic standards of humanity.”

However, there is some room for optimism, Amnesty said.

It listed moments of “resistance” such as Gen Z-led protests; the growing number of states joining South Africa’s case against Israel’s genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) crimes against humanity charges against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte; the Council of Europe’s special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine; and the ICC’s arrest warrant against two Taliban leaders for “gender-based persecution”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending