For two years, the United States was the main supporter of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. However, under President Donald Trump, this dynamic shifted. Trump proposed a plan that would make Ukraine a U.S. colony, giving the U.S. control over its natural resources and decision-making processes. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy swiftly rejected this proposal.
Trump’s Proposal to Control Ukraine’s Resources
Earlier this month, Trump put forward a plan to ensure continued U.S. support for Ukraine. Rather than offering weapons or traditional aid, he suggested that the U.S. should gain control over Ukraine’s natural resources, such as uranium, titanium, and lithium. While Zelenskyy had proposed a similar idea the year before, Trump’s version would reduce Ukraine to a subordinate state, rather than an equal partner.
After discussing the plan with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Zelenskyy rejected it. He pointed out that there was no benefit for Ukraine and criticized the proposal for lacking security guarantees. Zelenskyy told the Associated Press, “It is not ready to protect us, our interests.” He emphasized the need for both security and investment for Ukraine to move forward.
Key Details of Trump’s Plan
Trump claims the U.S. has already provided Ukraine with up to $500 billion in assistance. He proposed that Ukraine repay this amount by granting the U.S. control over its resources. The proposal includes not only rare earth minerals but also U.S. stakes in Ukraine’s ports, oil, gas, and infrastructure.
According to The Daily Telegraph, the plan would establish a joint investment fund. Under this arrangement, the U.S. would receive 50% of Ukraine’s revenue from resource extraction. It would also claim 50% of the value from future resource licenses and have first rights to any exportable minerals.
Moreover, the deals would be governed by U.S. law, not Ukrainian law, granting the U.S. nearly total control over Ukraine’s resource economy. The proposal also grants the U.S. sovereign immunity, making it nearly untouchable legally.
Coercion and Economic Colonization
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who reported on the proposal, described Trump’s plan as “economic colonization.” He argued that it would permanently place Ukraine under U.S. control. While Trump has consistently criticized U.S. aid to Ukraine, his direct engagement with Russia has raised serious concerns. Many fear that Trump is maneuvering to force Ukraine into a deal that benefits Russia.
Trump has been firm in his stance, saying that his proposal is a “take it or leave it” offer. In a Fox News interview, he warned that Ukraine could either accept the deal or “they may be Russian someday.” Evans-Pritchard compared Trump’s demands to reparations historically sought from nations that had caused destruction, such as Germany after World War I. He argued that Trump is giving Ukraine a stark choice: economic control by the U.S. or continued territorial violations by Russia.
Evans-Pritchard further criticized Trump’s approach as coercive. He described the plan as a form of neo-imperial power exerting control over a weaker nation for its resources.
