This is part two of a two-part series on the Trump Administration’s mineral trade deals. Read part one here.
New mineral trade “deals” that the Trump administration is pushing are extortion, not foreign policy. A deal being considered between Zambia and the United States that would make lifesaving medical aid contingent on access to minerals is just the latest in a series of these exploitative deals, including between the U.S. and Indonesia and the U.S., Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Holding a sustainable future hostage
The minerals that the Administration demands, often called critical minerals, are used for renewable energy and military technologies. Mining and processing minerals has severe negative impacts on communities, Indigenous Peoples, ecosystems, the climate, and water. Making sure a renewable energy future is truly just and sustainable means cutting back on the need for newly mined minerals wherever possible, and investing in recycling, reuse, and other circular economy solutions. But the Trump administration seems more interested in profits for mining companies and a limitless supply of minerals for war.
Exploiting a war in Rwanda and the DRC
Earthworks and allies in civil society voiced our concerns in a letter to an administration forcing critical minerals deals upon other countries. Like the Zambian proposal, many of these “deals” more resemble extortion than equitable trade policy, much less how one would treat a partner nation.
For example, the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the DRC, Rwanda, and the United States tries to leverage a peace deal in the recent war between Rwanda and the DRC as a means to secure exclusive rights for mining companies to access DRC’s minerals–namely cobalt. The war has killed at least 7,000 people and displaced at least 600,000 (as of March 2026).
According to Public Citizen, the core purpose of this Agreement is to make sure mining companies access the DRC’s minerals the United States government wants for war, energy, and other applications. The Agreement is arguably unconstitutional in both countries, and the process is deeply undemocratic. It creates a shopping list of mine sites where the United States subsidizes companies and investors to choose, or refuse, DRC’s minerals. The deal worsens the DRC’s economic reliance on industrial-scale mining, without suitably consulting the artisanal miner collectives who would most stand to benefit from high labor, environmental, and human rights safeguards that could be implemented as part of a truly equitable trade deal.
Exploitation disguised as trade agreements
Before the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, the Administration signed Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs) with many nations. These deals generally insisted on several commitments that tend to benefit various pharmaceutical, tech, mining, and oil companies.
For minerals, the most recent ART with Indonesia removes any trade restrictions for U.S. imports and compels Indonesia to “facilitate U.S. investment in its territory to mine, extract, refine, process, transport, distribute, and export critical minerals.” Unlike the DRC SPA, the Indonesia deal did not give U.S. companies the right of first refusal to Indonesia’s nickel. Yet, the deal clearly encourages U.S. companies to invest in more Indonesian nickel. As of this writing, Indonesia has neither ratified nor annulled their ART.
Increasing Indonesian nickel production also increases risks to communities. Earthworks recently released research on the risks to communities, workers and the environment of mine waste from nickel processing. Multiple tailings failures at nickel industrial parks have resulted in flooding and multiple worker deaths. We are calling for a moratorium on permitting new tailings facilities until the Indonesian government can hold operators accountable and achieve proper oversight. Nickel production in Indonesia has also been connected with displacement, deforestation, and water contamination.
Building off centuries of inequality
Trade between countries in the Global North and Global South has been unequal for centuries. Even though many Asian, African, and Latin American countries won their independence from colonial governments, the economies designed to extract resources from some countries while making profits for others remain. The result is that residents of our trading partners live with mining impacts while mining companies make a profit and the U.S. sells weapons to its military and others’.
A future built on something better
Equitable and sustainable trade policy requires acknowledging that the US government, historically and regularly, prioritizes companies that take advantage of extraction-affected communities, including in Global North countries. The status quo remains fundamentally unjust. In building a better system, governments must, among other things, prioritize Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for Indigenous Peoples; community consultation; best available technologies; low- and zero-waste plans; and enforceable high labor, environmental, and governance standards. We must demand reparations for chattel slavery, colonialism, and the climate crisis, and ensure newly-generated wealth stays within the communities and countries with whom the U.S. trades.
People in the DRC, Indonesia, and everywhere else have the right to healthy, dignified lives. They have the right to governments responsive to their interests. Advocates in the Global North must commit to solidarity with mining-affected communities and their organizations, like those in the DRC, Indonesia, and elsewhere are fighting for that future and standing up to irresponsible mining that threatens their homes and families. As the Trump administration intensifies that threat, people and organizations in the United States must speak up for our shared future too.