Legal loopholes in the US-Ukraine mineral agreement.

A framework agreement stipulates that the U.S. will have access to revenue from Ukraine's natural resources in exchange for security guarantees. However, experts argue that this agreement contains legal loopholes that need to be addressed in negotiations between the leaders of the two countries in Washington.

According to Reuters, the draft agreement, which the news agency has seen, outlines the establishment of a "Reconstruction Investment Fund" jointly managed by the United States and Ukraine. The draft contains reassuring provisions, but the U.S. does not provide Kyiv with the security guarantees it desires.

The agreement is expected to be signed on February 28 (Washington time), when US President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The agreement stipulates that the Ukrainian government will contribute 50% of the cash proceeds from any state-owned natural resource assets to the fund. However, the agreement does not provide the amount, timeline, or details regarding the fund's management.

Brian McGarry, associate professor of international law at Leiden University, who has advised developing countries on treaty negotiations, said that this is not surprising and is what one would expect from a framework agreement.

"It creates obligations for cooperation, but there are no specific, binding commitments of a defense nature. That's exactly what we see in this agreement. The U.S. hasn't provided any specific guarantees," expert McGarry said.

A diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said the document "appears to be a pretty good agreement for both sides."

Although there are no security guarantees, the terms outlined in the framework could be a relief for Ukraine, with President Trump abandoning his initial demand for $500 billion in reparations for military aid that has been provided.

Ukrainian President Zelensky said on February 26 that the success of the mineral deal would depend on negotiations with President Trump, despite the lack of firm security guarantees from the United States.

The document states that the funds will be reinvested "to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine" and that this will be outlined in a fund agreement addressing future financial distributions.

The document states that the U.S. government "will maintain its long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine," but does not specify what that means.

McGarry added that the details would need to be resolved in future negotiations before a binding treaty could be reached.

An unprecedented approach

According to McGarry, a key element is that the draft states that, in future negotiations on the fund, Ukraine and the United States "will endeavor to avoid conflict with Ukraine's obligations" on its path to European Union membership.

"At least in principle, there is interesting political support for that process," McGarry said, amid Washington's increasingly hostile stance toward the EU.

Ukraine possesses reserves of 22 out of 34 mineral types identified as important by the EU, including industrial and construction materials, ferroalloys, precious and non-ferrous metals, and several rare earth elements.

President Trump's goals appear to be twofold: withdrawing U.S. financial and military support for Ukraine, and limiting U.S. dependence on Chinese resources.

China, the country with which President Trump has threatened a trade war, is the world's largest producer of rare earth minerals – resources used to manufacture magnets in electric vehicles, weapons, and electronics.

Professor Tim Meyer, an international law professor at Duke University, said the framework agreement does not address a dispute resolution mechanism and Washington's share of the future fund is still under discussion.

He stated, "This agreement highlights some uncertainty on the U.S. side regarding whether the government has the authority to hold the kind of interests in the fund that the agreement refers to," adding that a negotiated fund agreement would likely require congressional approval.

Guillermo Christensen, a national security and international trade expert at the US law firm K&L Gates, said the framework provides "a unique and unprecedented approach," not seen in other national agreements.