Tangle - The Trump-Zelensky mineral rights deal.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

What Tangle’s all about.

Tomorrow, we’re going to publish a piece from Executive Editor Isaac Saul responding to some criticisms we’ve gotten over the past few weeks and defining what Tangle is all about.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump said he plans to announce 25% tariffs on goods made in the European Union (EU) in the near future. The EU responded that it would react "firmly and immediately against unjustified tariffs.” (The comments) Separately, Trump said that his 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada will go into effect on March 4, as well as additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports. (The plan)
2. Hamas returned the bodies of four Israeli hostages, and Israel released over 600 imprisoned Palestinians, marking the final exchange of phase one of the ceasefire agreement. (The releases)
3. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors after the administration asked the court for an emergency order. The groups challenging the White House’s action must now respond by midday Friday. (The decision) Separately, the Trump administration said in a memo that it plans to eliminate roughly 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. international assistance. (The memo)
4. President Trump told reporters that he intends to replace a visa program for foreign investors with a “gold card” that could be purchased for $5 million as a pathway to United States citizenship. (The proposal)
5. The heads of the Office of Personnel Management told federal agencies to prepare for large-scale layoffs of federal workers in the coming months. (The guidance)

Today's topic.

The Ukraine minerals deal. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump told reporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had accepted the draft of a deal that would send partial revenues from Ukraine’s rare earth minerals to the United States. Zelensky described the agreement as a “framework” and said he and Trump would be holding further discussions. The deal could be signed as soon as Friday, when Zelensky reportedly plans to visit the White House. 

Back up: Ukraine controls more than 100 major deposits of mineral resources and estimates that it has 5% of the world's “critical raw materials” — including graphite, titanium, lithium, and uranium — and significant deposits of rare earth metals that are used to produce weapons, wind turbines, electronics, and other products. President Trump has pushed for a deal on resource rights in Ukraine as a precondition for further U.S. aid and security support in Ukraine’s war with Russia. Earlier in February, he proposed 50% ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as a way for the country to reimburse the U.S. for the military aid it has provided since Russia’s initial attack in February 2022. Trump has also said he wants to establish a fund for Ukraine to give the United States $500 billion worth of rare earth metals and minerals. 

The draft of the agreement announced on Tuesday does not include the $500 billion stipulation, but it does create a fund that would give the U.S. 50% of revenues from future monetization of “all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined 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).” The fund would not draw on revenue from existing mines, oil wells, and other natural resource businesses.

The current iteration of the deal also does not include explicit security guarantees for Ukraine, though it says that the U.S. government “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.” Trump suggested that any security agreement would be part of a separate deal, telling reporters, “We'll be looking… general security for Ukraine later on. I don't think that's going to be a problem. There are a lot of people that want to do it, and I spoke with Russia about it. They didn't seem to have a problem with it.”

Zelensky expressed optimism about the deal and said “concrete steps on security guarantees” would have to be negotiated jointly with the United States and Europe. 

The agreement comes amid a shift in U.S. policy on the war from the Trump administration. Last week, Trump called Zelensky “a dictator without elections” and said Ukraine "should never have started" the war with Russia. Those comments followed a meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of the conflict — afterward, the countries agreed to “appoint high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible.” 

Today, we’ll share perspectives on the potential deal from the left and right, as well as international writers. Then, my take.

What the left is saying.

• The left objects to Trump’s handling of the negotiations, arguing he is taking advantage of a weakened ally.
• Many support the underlying goal of the deal but say Trump has needlessly acted like a bully to achieve it.

The Washington Post editorial board said “the White House’s Ukraine minerals plan sounds like a shakedown.”

“The president and his top aides are now trying to cajole, coerce and even threaten Zelensky into signing over half of Ukraine’s revenue from oil, gas and other minerals, as well as earnings from its port, worth a total of $500 billion,” the board wrote. “And what is Trump offering Ukraine in return? So far, not much. Trump already has nixed the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine. (‘I don’t think it’s practical,’ he said.) The deal makes no mention of any long-term security guarantees for Ukraine and certainly not for the ‘non-nuclear strategic deterrence’ that was part of Zelensky’s plan.”

“Ukraine has held out bravely against Russia’s brutal aggression, at the cost of hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, entire towns and villages destroyed and depopulated, and basic infrastructure damaged by daily Russian missile and artillery strikes. It has been able to resist because of the steadfast support of President Joe Biden and Europe’s leaders,” the board said. “Now, Trump wants to reduce support for Ukraine’s sovereignty to a mercantilist deal over its mineral wealth — with none of the security guarantees Ukraine needs to remain viable in the face of a revanchist Russia.”

In Newsweek, Dan Perry suggested Trump’s demands make the United States look like “gangsters.”

“Trump's gangster-like shakedown of Ukraine for its rare earth minerals is a breathtaking deviation from decades of American global leadership, effectively recasting the United States as a global gun for hire,” Perry wrote. “Trump's demand seems aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains. This is not illogical, in the same way that any blackmail makes sense on paper… [but] America has rightly been viewed as a beacon of democracy and a protector of freedom on the global stage. When it has provided military or economic aid, this was grounded in strategic interests, security imperatives, or moral obligations—not as a quid pro quo for profit.”

“If the U.S. only assists nations at war in exchange for financial compensation, then it ceases to be an ally—it becomes a mercenary. This sets a dangerous precedent: Today, Ukraine is asked to trade away its economic sovereignty to fend off Russian aggression; tomorrow, another vulnerable nation might be coerced into surrendering its political autonomy,” Perry said. “This is not to argue that transactionalism has no place in foreign affairs; it certainly does. For example, when the U.S. agreed to provide Israel with billions in foreign aid, it gained a strategic ally in the Middle East… However, these arrangements were not mere shakedowns; they were anchored in strategic diplomacy and geopolitical calculus.”

What the right is saying.

• The right is supportive of the deal, suggesting it showcases Trump's understanding of geopolitical dynamics.
• Some say that deal serves U.S. and Ukrainian interests.

In RedState, Ward Clark said Trump demonstrated “the art of the deal.”

“This appears to not be so much an agreement (bear in mind we haven't seen the actual deal yet) as just the framework of an agreement. Precisely what the United States will offer in the way of support and what we get out of it in return isn't completely clear,” Clark wrote. “This framework appears to exclude the majority of Ukraine's gas and oil production. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Here in the United States, we have ample oil and gas resources of our own, and the various nations of Western Europe could use a friendlier source than Russia.

“Europe doesn't have the strength, or the will, to counter Russia on its own. That's why they have been seeking, all along, American involvement. The Biden administration was content to shovel billions into Ukraine. And it appears to be baffling Europe in general and Ukraine in particular that an American president might ask, ‘What's in it for us?,’” Clark said. “It is perhaps belaboring the obvious to note that this deal also precludes Russian access to these strategic resources. That's good, for now; remember that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.”

In National Review, Dan McLaughlin asked “is Trump’s minerals deal throwing Zelensky into the briar patch?”

“Donald Trump has long argued that the United States should act more like an empire — or at least an acquisitive real estate tycoon — by using the leverage of its military and commercial influence to extract economically valuable concessions from countries that want access to our markets or aid in their defense,” McLaughlin said. “While there is some truth to this and something to be said for ensuring that our foreign aid, trade policy, and military alliances aren’t one-way streets, it’s also a simplistic view of the world (in missing how much we benefit from things like general peace in Europe and South America or the free navigation of the seas).”

“Why would the Ukrainians welcome a deal that hands over a stake in the country’s mineral wealth to Uncle Don, er, Sam? Because they understand that if the United States government has a materially significant stake in Ukraine, the security of Ukraine and the avoidance of any Russian threat to peaceful commerce in Ukraine becomes our business,” McLaughlin wrote. “If this deal goes through as reported, it may not matter that it doesn’t commit our promises to the security of Ukraine; it would commit our interests. And that is a thing for which Zelensky and his nation are willing to pay dearly.”

What international writers are saying.

• Some writers say Trump’s deal sacrifices long-term stability for short-term gain.
• Others say the deal is the necessary price of a U.S.-brokered end to the war.

In The Kyiv Independent, Dmytro Kuleba wrote “Trump’s rare earth deal risks Ukraine repeating history’s mistakes.”

“At the beginning of 1918, amid World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary were in dire need of natural resources. Simply put, they needed grain, lard, meat, and oil to sustain their war efforts and economies. Ukraine, having recently declared independence from the Russian Empire and fighting to secure its sovereignty, possessed all of these resources. Seeing an opportunity, Germany intervened,” Kuleba said. “ But when Germany lost World War I, its need for Ukraine disappeared. The retreating German forces left Ukraine vulnerable, and resistance to the unpopular hetman grew, while Moscow regained strength.”

“And now, history repeats itself — only this time, it’s the United States instead of Germany. Lithium instead of grain. Graphite instead of lard… But unlike a century ago, there is no promise to send an army — neither the U.S. nor NATO — to protect the resources Washington needs,” Kuleba wrote. “Politicians should not be at odds with each other. The egos and resentments of politicians, the desire to destroy their rivals in order to strengthen themselves, harm both the state and the people. Only Moscow benefits from internal divisions.”

In Responsible Statecraft, Ian Proud called the deal a “steep but worthy price” for peace.

“At over $11 trillion, the value of Ukraine’s minerals is significant and $500 billion appears a relatively small percentage of the whole. But it is in fact a huge sum for a small, hugely indebted country like Ukraine,” Proud said. “Ukraine exported a meagre $4.2 billion in metals in 2023, so it would take almost 120 years to pay back America, losing a vital source of export revenue in the process, which it cannot afford. So this deal is more likely about offering concessions to large U.S. companies to exploit certain fields over the longer term.”

“Inevitably, President Zelensky is being nudged towards making a bad deal on terms less favourable than those available to him in late March 2022 at a huge cost to his country’s wealth. I suspect that history will record February 12, 2025 as being the beginning of the end of this act in his stoic political career,” Proud wrote. “For President Trump, however, if a ceasefire does indeed break out in the coming weeks, he may simultaneously have brokered peace and secured valuable assets for the United States.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• A mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine would be mutually beneficial.
• This isn’t thuggish from Trump, and Zelensky is being wise and rational in leveraging his country’s strengths.
• I’ll ultimately judge this by the outcome, but it’s a much better move than trying the same thing as the last administration.

This is a great step forward.

Let me start by swatting away some of the nonsense I’m seeing out there. First of all, calling this plan a “shakedown” ignores the basic history of how it’s evolved. A mineral rights deal was literally Zelensky’s suggestion. It was part of the victory plan he released last year, in which he said Ukraine could offer allies “a special agreement for the joint protection of the country's critical resources,” including “natural resources and critical metals worth trillions of U.S. dollars, including uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite, and other strategically valuable resources.” 

Not only that, but deals like this are nothing new. The pearl clutching from the liberal class about “Trump's gangster-like shakedown” being a “breathtaking deviation from decades of American global leadership, effectively recasting the United States as a global gun for hire,” is actually laughable. 

We have the strongest military in the world. We’re more than a global gun for hire — we have always used our vast power to advance our interests around the world.

We use our military might to defend other nations when our interests are aligned, and we’ve never done any of that for free. We have a checkered track record with military intervention, but throughout U.S. history we have also defended leaders and nations striving toward democracy and freedom. We should be defending Ukraine. But we also don’t intervene in every single conflict. We don’t always fight for democracy or freedom everywhere all the time; we do it when our involvement benefits us in some way. That is not new, it’s not Trumpian, and acting out of self-interest in times of war is not the same as being an unprincipled mercenary. 

This minerals deal framework makes obvious sense for us and for Ukraine. It is perfectly in line with similar arrangements that have been made throughout history, and if Ukraine’s allies have economic interests in the country, they’ll want stability. If the U.S. depends in some way on rare earth minerals in Ukraine, the U.S. will be upset if Russia rains bombs down on the Donbas and will find a way to make it stop. That much is simple. Economic interests can produce military security.

Putting aside the U.S. perspective, it’s also a wise political move from Zelensky. On Monday, the Ukrainian president responded to nonsense from Trump and Musk about his own personal interests driving the war by offering to step down as president in exchange for peace or NATO membership — a brilliant response that immediately shut them up and made their dictator claims against him look as silly as they are. Zelensky is good at this. 

Zelensky knows that funding from the U.S. and Europe depends on elected officials approving that funding. He understands that those elected officials have to answer to voters at home, who may be wondering why their roads are riddled with potholes while $50 billion is sent to support Ukraine’s government. If he can make the case for defending Ukraine in economic terms, politicians can sell the support to their constituents back home.

On top of being wise, it's rational. Ukraine, like any nation, has strengths and weaknesses. Compared to other European countries, its military is a weakness and its natural resources are a strength. It makes sense to use one to improve the other. Writers suggesting Ukraine is being “asked to trade away its economic sovereignty to fend off Russian aggression” could just as easily write “Ukraine is smartly trading some of its economic strength for its literal sovereignty.”

And let’s be clear here: Zelensky does have some leverage. The United States’ biggest global competitor is China, which is rich in many of the same natural resources that Ukraine is. These minerals are critical for the future of all kinds of electronics and tech — from weapons to electric vehicles. The crucial details of this deal have not yet been finalized, but Trump’s initial lob here was a paydown of some $500 billion in natural resources, and I think it’s pretty clear he’s not going to get that. Zelensky clearly understands the strengths of his position.

Let’s also not forget that last week a lot of people were worried about Ukraine allegedly being “left out of a peace deal.” Now, Putin is being wholly left out of these negotiations and trying to insert himself by offering up hundreds of billions of dollars or even Russia’s own mineral resources (including those on lands Russia is occupying in Ukraine). If you are the Trump administration, this is a good place to be — you want Russia squirming, and you want an avenue toward a long-term, win-win deal with Ukraine.

As I said last week, and have said every time we’ve written about this topic for the past three years, Russia started this war. They can end it any day by leaving Ukraine, and we should never forget that Putin invaded a sovereign country on the trumped-up premise that 40 million free Ukrainians belong to him. That much should be obvious to everyone, including the U.S. president (and it is appalling that it apparently is not). 

That being said, I’ll judge Trump by the outcome here. The previous administration had three years to facilitate a resolution to this conflict, which started on its watch. Biden did a good job rallying European allies to Ukraine’s side, and he did the right thing by pushing U.S. lawmakers to support Ukraine in the war. If anything, with 20/20 hindsight, I believe that if we had had more faith in Ukraine and supported them more aggressively early on in the war, it may well be over by now. Unfortunately, while the Biden administration succeeded in helping prevent the fall of Ukraine, it also failed to hammer out a peace deal. 

Given that, I do not blame Trump or the Trump administration for taking a different tack. It would literally be insane to keep trying the same thing and expect a new outcome. Do I wish Ukraine had more options on the table — like NATO membership and the return of stolen territory? Yes, I do. 

Am I going to object to a deal that would end the bloodshed, improve the United States’ long-term economic goals, tie Ukraine’s security closely to our economic interests, and is apparently good enough for Ukraine’s president? 

Absolutely not. 

Take the survey: What do you think of a mineral-rights deal between the U.S. and Ukraine? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: There have been (numerous) news reports that the US is a net oil exporter… but the recent tariffs announced by Trump included oil imports from Canada. If we are truly an oil exporter, why would we need to import oil from Canada? And if we do import oil from Canada, what percentage is it of our consumption, and would it be substantial enough to result in higher consumer prices… or how much revenue would be generated by Canada paying to continue those exports to the US (the perspective of the Trump administration)?

— Joe from Massachusetts

Tangle: For background, President Trump plans to levy 10% tariffs on Canadian energy imports (the tariffs were delayed earlier this month, but Trump said on Wednesday that they will “go forward” on March 4). 

Now, to your question: Yes, the United States is a net oil exporter. In 2023, the Energy Information Administration reported that the U.S. exported roughly 10.15 million barrels per day of petroleum — which includes crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, refined petroleum products (such as gasoline and diesel fuel), and biofuels — while importing roughly 8.51 million barrels per day. It’s also true that recent increases in domestic energy production have reduced our need for oil imports; while the U.S. consumed more energy than it produced every year from 1958–2018, advancements in drilling technology (fracking) have driven production increases that have made us a net exporter since 2019. 

With that said, the U.S. is not energy independent and still relies on oil imports to meet consumption demand. U.S. oil refineries were designed to run on a blend of different types of oil, and Canada has an abundance of “heavy crude” that is relatively scarce in the U.S. but vital to these refineries’ operations. Simply put, our energy infrastructure depends on the type of crude oil we import from the north; 52% of the petroleum we import comes from Canada. That dependency goes both ways, too, since Canada is also hugely reliant on oil imports from the U.S.

To your last question, if the energy tariffs go into effect, they’ll likely impact consumer prices — but the size of the impact is up for debate. Some analysts have suggested that gas prices would only increase by a few cents, as Canadian oil producers and U.S. refiners would absorb most of the costs; others, however, note that Canada could impose an export tax on oil as a retaliatory measure, which would drive prices up more appreciably.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Tuesday, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) deleted five of the largest savings it has claimed on its nascent website tracking efforts to reduce government spending. The removed line items, which totaled roughly $10.2 billion, had been improperly accounted for — the bulk of which came from an $8 billion Immigration and Customs Enforcement contract actually worth $8 million. Neither the White House nor DOGE has explained the deletion. Furthermore, the new largest cut on the website is a $1.9 billion Treasury Department contract that was canceled last fall. The New York Times has the story.

Numbers.

• $175 billion. The total amount of U.S. aid to Ukraine appropriated by Congress since Russia’s invasion in 2022. 
• $120 billion. The estimated amount of U.S. aid allocated to programs that directly support Ukraine. 
• $67.3 billion, $49 billion, and $3.6 billion. Of that $120 billion, the amount that has been allocated to military aid, budget support for the Ukrainian government and humanitarian aid, respectively. 
• $320 billion. The estimated value of the global market for critical minerals in 2024. 
• 20,000. The approximate number of mineral deposits (covering 116 types of minerals) in Ukraine. 
• 3,055. Prior to Russia’s invasion, the number of mineral deposits in Ukraine that were designated as active.
• 20. The number of mineral types found in deposits in Ukraine that the U.S. Geological Survey lists as critical for America’s economic development and defense. 
• 39%. The percentage of Americans who say supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia helps U.S. national security, according to a February 2025 Pew Research survey. 
• 31%. The percentage of Americans who say supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia hurts U.S. national security.

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about Trump winning South Carolina’s primary.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the story of people with a last name that breaks databases.
• Nothing to do with politics: Mexico’s mania for one specific amphibian.
• Yesterday’s survey: 4,101 readers answered our survey on Kash Patel and Dan Bongino with 85% disapproving of both. “Having an FBI that is "loyal" to the President undermines the purpose for their existence. When will enough Republicans stand up to what's happening,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Worldwide, women’s athletics continues to struggle for recognition and support — an issue especially evident in Abigail Kwartekaa Quartey’s story. Quartey, a female boxer from Ghana,  dreamed of becoming a professional boxer despite being heavily discouraged from training by her family, culture, and community. However, with the support of her brother, coach and a fellow boxer, she became Ghana’s first female world boxing champion in 2024. “I am a world title holder and that confirms that what a man can do, a woman can also do,” Quartey said. The Associated Press has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 330,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!