World
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-fire. But the deal does mean that the United States could send more military aid to Ukraine if a peace deal is not reached.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mark Schiefelbein has been based in Washington, D.C., with AP for about three years, and before that spent a decade in Beijing at AP’s China bureau.
Here’s what he had to say about this extraordinary photo.
Why this photo?
This was an event that had never happened before in the 250-year history of the United States and may never happen again: a night of mixed martial-arts cage match brawls on the South Lawn of the White House, with bloodied competitors battling it out in front of the president, vice president, and other leaders of the country. AP had other photographers ringside at the event focusing more on the fights themselves. So I felt my role was to capture the context of the evening — the location, the people in attendance, the environment.
How I made this photo
A small group of other photographers and I, the White House press pool, had been allowed to photograph part of the evening from a position in the stands directly opposite the White House. I was carrying four cameras with a variety of lenses from 12 mm to 300 mm. This let me capture everything from ultra-wide views of the “claw” structure built for the fights, to close-ups of leaders and celebrities in attendance. I had been following Diego Lopes with my longest lens as he moved around the ring celebrating his win over Steve Garcia. When I saw him start to climb onto the cage, I immediately realized there might be a possibility of a picture like this and zoomed out to capture more of the scene.
An octagon on the White House lawn for Trump’s 80th birthday and the nation’s 250th, in photos
Why this photo works
The White House is surely one of the most recognizable buildings in the world. The columns of the South Portico, the fighter standing with arms and legs spread wide in celebration, and the octagon padding of the UFC ring tell an entire story as your eyes move from top to bottom of the frame. With Lopes standing with his back to the camera, facing the White House, it becomes less a photo of him and more about the evening, the event, and the spectacle. It was fortunate that it was after nightfall, so things that might have been distracting, like the Marine Band and spectators seated behind the ring, are mostly in the dark. Only the key elements – the White House, Lopes, and the ring are lit up.
—
For more extraordinary AP photography, click here.
World
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Andy Burnham has officially won his special election and regained a seat in Parliament, setting him up to challenge the deeply unpopular Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour party and as prime minister.
Burnham, currently the mayor of Greater Manchester in northwest England, won a seat in Makerfield and came away with 55% of the vote in a field of more than a dozen candidates, according to The Associated Press. The runner-up was Rob Kenyon of Reform UK, a right-wing populist party, who received more than 9,000 fewer votes than Burnham.
Burnham last served as a member of Parliament in 2017 but strongly implied in his victory speech that he is returning with the intention to lead the United Kingdom.
“Everyone knows that politics isn’t working. Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point,” he said, according to the AP. “This result will bring about a country that works fairly for everywhere and for everybody.”
TRUMP ALLY NIGEL FARAGE DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO STARMER IN LOCAL UK ELECTIONS AS RESIGNATION CALLS MOUNT
Britain’s Labour party candidate Andy Burnham speaks to supporters after the Makerfield by-election in Ashton in Makerfield, England, on Friday, June 19, 2026. (Jon Super/AP)
This special election, called by-elections in Britain, was unusually significant because the area’s Labour MP, Josh Simons, intentionally resigned to allow Burnham to win the seat and pursue leadership.
The potentially outsized impact of this election was juxtaposed with the strange scene that unfolded when all the candidates gathered on Friday morning to hear the results. Burnham stood in between an independent candidate dressed in a fox costume and another candidate known as “Count Binface”.
As his name suggests, “Count Binface,” whose real name is Jonathan David Harvey, was wearing a trash can on his head and regularly runs in U.K. elections to advocate for increased voter turnout.
Starmer congratulated Burnham in a social media post on X, saying voters “chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”
When asked about Burnham’s intentions to oust him as leader, Starmer said he will fight to remain prime minister, a position he has held for nearly two years.
“I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that,” Starmer told reporters.
Labour party candidate Andy Burnham, center, stands with other candidates on the podium at the Edge Wigan, awaiting the Makerfield by-election result announcement in Wigan, England, on Friday, June 19, 2026. (Jon Super/AP)
AS EPSTEIN-LINKED APPOINTMENT SPARKS BACKLASH, UK PM STARMER FACES PARTY REVOLT AMID RESIGNATION CALLS
Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory in July 2024 and ever since, his popularity has been eroding thanks to a persistently high cost of living, an anemic economy and a scandal over his willingness to accept gifts from wealthy donors.
Last September, Starmer was slammed for appointing Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to the United States, when it was known as early as 2019 that Mandelson had a friendship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Following an enormous public backlash, Mandelson was quickly dismissed from his post.
With Starmer as leader, Labour is increasingly losing liberal-minded voters to the Green Party, while also facing stronger challenges by Reform UK, a Nigel Farage-led party that advocates against mass migration and in favor of tighter border controls. Farage, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said he was disappointed by Burnham’s victory.
Burnham is expected to head to London to be sworn in as soon as Monday. Under the British parliamentary system, the governing party can hold leadership elections in the middle of the term. The winner of such a contest can become prime minister without there having to be a national election.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer awaits Switzerland’s Federal President Guy Parmelin on the sidelines of the G7 summit, in Evian-les-Bains, France, on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 (Isabel Infantes/Pool Reuters via AP)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under Labour rules, a lawmaker can challenge the leader if they win the backing of a fifth of their party’s members in the House of Commons. Burnham has enough lawmakers on board to trigger a leadership contest, according to a report from The New Statesman.
According to the AP, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Burnham and Starmer will “have a conversation about what comes next” in the next few days.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have issued a blistering rebuke against deportation camps outside the European Union, setting their countries on a collision course with a growing political majority.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
During a summit on Friday, 19 leaders across the bloc signed a joint declaration calling to make “full use” of a new European law that enables the construction of so-called return hubs to host migrants whose asylum applications have been denied.
The coalition, led by Denmark and Italy, two fierce advocates of outsourcing, wants to “move forward with solutions based in third countries as soon as possible”.
But for Macron and Sánchez, this path runs counter to European values and risks squandering financial resources and undercutting relations with neighbouring Africa.
“I am not sure that this is our Europe. I don’t know if these are the fundamental principles on which our Europe was built,” Macron said at the end of the summit on Friday.
“And I don’t think it’s effective, either. The proof is that I have not seen anyone make it work so far,” he went on, underscoring his strong dissatisfaction. (Italy has set up migration centres on Albanian soil but has fallen short of expected targets.)
“I have a lot of respect for anyone who wants to do it. I disagree, both pragmatically and in principle. I think it has nothing to do with European politics.”
Macron said his country was in favour of tougher laws to curb irregular arrivals but drew a red line on the physical transfer of migrants to faraway countries where they have never set foot. That possibility, long considered taboo, is allowed under a revamped Return Regulation described as the “strictest-ever” migration law.
“There is a question, in fact, around these famous return hubs in third countries. France does not support this policy. We are in favour of a more effective return policy. But first of all, I have never seen a return hub in a third country operate,” Macron went on.
“I invite you to consider what it is (in practice): this means that people who do not want to return to their country of origin or who cannot get back to their country of origin will be pushed into a third country, which will accept them in return for money.”
Macron mocked the jargonistic term “innovative solutions” that proponents of migration offshoring often use in their public communication and challenged the notion that host countries would respect human rights in exchange for financial incentives.
“I am a big supporter of innovation in my country,” he said, saying he would later attend the Vivatech festival in Paris. “But I am always very careful when talking about innovation in values and human rights. Allow me to have that reservation.”
Meanwhile, Sánchez, a vocal critic of the measures, said the deportation camps would be an “absolutely inefficient” and “worthless” response to irregular migration.
“It’s a mirage, if you will, that it will simply waste economic resources, and Europe doesn’t have many,” the Spaniard said after the summit in Brussels.
“Secondly, it sends a wrong message to those countries of origin and transit with which we should be collaborating, cooperating and showing empathy towards.”
Macron echoed Sánchez’s reputational concerns and insisted he would not allow EU funds to be used in any capacity to build the deportation camps, which are “neither effective nor do they correspond with our principles”.
“Sometimes, we hear one or the other (country) advocate policies with the African continent, so good luck defending our credibility on these continents by explaining that we will use the money for investments to build return hubs on their continents,” he said.
“What world do we live in?”
-
Finance50 seconds agoHomegrown Music Festival looks to right finances, hire new leadership
-
Fitness8 minutes agoWhy this unexpected exercise is most effective for building arm muscle in your 50s – and how to do it properly
-
Movie Reviews16 minutes agoThe Beautifully Handcrafted Rose of Nevada Is a Ghost Story Like No Other
-
World26 minutes agoOn the South Lawn, a UFC fighter’s victory frames an unusual White House scene
-
Politics38 minutes agoVideo: Demining the Strait of Hormuz
-
Health53 minutes agoVideo: Wii Bowling Takes Over Tulsa Retirement Homes
-
Lifestyle1 hour ago
This Pride month, teen flicks are recasting familiar tropes with a queer sensibility
-
Technology1 hour agoNASA selects Eric Schmidt’s rocket company for a 2028 mission to Mars
