Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
When U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met to sign a minerals agreement on 28 February, their discussion devolved into a heated, and widely covered, exchange.
The minerals agreement, if signed, would result in half of Ukraine’ future revenue from minerals and natural resources going to the United States, in exchange for U.S. military support.
A draft of the deal published by Kyiv Independent on 26 February, defines natural resource assets as “deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure).”
One subset of these resources, critical minerals, are so-called because they are considered critical to the national or economic security of the United States. They include aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, and silicon.
President Trump declared a National Energy Emergency in January, proclaiming that the “energy and critical minerals… identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs.” In the same month, Eos reported on the mining industry’s struggle to recruit employees.
A 2022 assessment by Hanna Liventseva, then-president of the Ukrainian Association of Geologists, noted that the country covers just 0.4% of the Earth’s surface but contains about 5% of the world’s mineral resources. Her report also stated that there are 8,761 deposits and 1,288 recorded sites for 95 minerals of commercial value, which are included in the Ukrainian Recorded Mineral Reserves. According to the Ukrainian Geological Survey, Ukraine ranks first among European Union countries in graphite and lithium reserves, and also has notable amounts of titanium, beryllium, and uranium.
However, in an analysis piece for Foreign Policy, University of Texas at Austin public affairs researcher Joshua Busby, U.S. Naval War College Russia Maritime Studies Institute researcher Emily J. Holland, and Colorado School of Mines Payne Institute for Public Policy director Morgan D. Bazilian suggested that access to Ukraine’s minerals won’t solve supply chain problems in the United States. They argue that this is because knowledge of Ukraine’s minerals is limited, and developing mines and extracting minerals is time-consuming and difficult—particularly during a war.
“The unique realities of global minerals markets—as well as logistical conditions on the ground in Ukraine—make it highly unlikely that these assets would have any meaningful impact on U.S. national and economic security in the short and medium term,” they wrote.
It is unclear when—and whether—the minerals deal will be signed, but both President Zelenskyy and a representative of President Trump have suggested it will be.
—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.
