Ukraine Takes First Step Toward Carrying Out Minerals Deal With U.S.
On Monday, Ukraine approved the first steps to allowing private investors to mine a major state-owned lithium deposit, two government officials said. Such a project would be the first to be greenlit under the deal.
The government agreed to begin drafting recommendations for opening bidding by companies to mine the Dobra lithium field in central Ukraine, according to the two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. It is one of Ukraine's largest fields of lithium, a mineral critical for producing electric batteries.
Among the likely bidders is a consortium of investors that include TechMet, an energy investment firm partly owned by the U.S. government, and Ronald S. Lauder, a billionaire friend of President Trump's. The group has long expressed interest in the Dobra lithium deposit, urging President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in late 2023 to open bids.
Under the broader deal, half the revenues the Ukrainian government earns from mineral extraction would go to a joint U.S.-Ukraine investment fund. Those revenues would then be reinvested in Ukraine's economy, though the United States would also claim a portion. Mr. Trump has portrayed that arrangement as repayment for past U.S. aid to the war-torn country.
Drafting the recommendations is expected to take weeks, and the Ukrainian government could still decide against opening the bidding process. The Ukrainian government did not immediately publicly comment on Monday's decision.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump administration sued over ICE arrests at immigration courthouses
Civil rights groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday in a bid to stop the government's policy of allowing ICE officers to arrest undocumented immigrants who show up for immigration hearings at courthouses. The class-action lawsuit filed at a federal court in Washington, DC, on behalf of a dozen immigrants and several civil rights groups opens a new front in a sprawling legal effort by advocates to halt recent controversial moves by the administration aimed at increasing deportations in the US. Until recently, the Department of Homeland Security operated under guidelines that limited immigration enforcement at courthouses. After the Trump administration rescinded those guidelines shortly into the president's second term, masked law enforcement officers began showing up at courthouses across the country to arrest migrants. The lawsuit details the administration's new strategy: government attorneys ask an immigration judge to dismiss civil proceedings against an immigrant 'based on changed circumstances,' and, upon dismissal, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents – who are sometimes already present in or near the courtroom – arrest the individual. The person is then transferred into expedited removal proceedings, which gives them little legal recourse and typically requires their detention. In some cases, immigrants are detained immediately after the hearing or upon exiting the courthouse. And in many cases, attorneys say immigrants are detained in facilities far from the city where their court hearing took place. 'The consequences of (the administration's) actions are severe. Noncitizens, including most of the individual plaintiffs here, have been abruptly ripped from their families, lives, homes, and jobs for appearing in immigration court, a step required to enable them to proceed with their applications for permission to remain in this country,' lawyers for the civil rights groups and immigrants wrote in court papers. The attorneys are asking a federal judge to block the series of policy changes that have allowed the administration to carry out the effort, alleging they violate the US Constitution and federal law. Among the individual plaintiffs are people who unlawfully entered the US in recent years and were arrested at courthouses after their cases were dismissed, including several who had pending asylum applications. One of them, a Cuban man identified in court papers as P.D., appeared for a hearing on his asylum application in late May. 'At that hearing, DHS orally moved to dismiss his case without notice' and 'without articulating any change in circumstances,' according to the lawsuit. 'P.D.'s lawyer argued that his case should not be dismissed, but the judge granted the government's motion. As soon as P.D. left the courtroom, he was arrested and taken into custody.' Immigrant rights groups say the courthouse arrests reflect a growing trend: enforcement no longer confined to border crossings or employer sites, but extending into places once considered out of bounds. The rescission of the DHS policy came as ICE faced mounting pressure from within the Trump administration to ramp up the agency's detention and deportation numbers. Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, told ICE officials in May that they needed to average 3,000 arrests per day, a figure that has largely been elusive. The push to undertake immigration-enforcement operations at courthouses stunned lawyers, legal advocates and civil rights activists who said that the operations targeted immigrants simply following legal procedures and who worried that fears about arrests at courthouses may drive immigrants underground. 'The Trump-Vance administration is weaponizing immigration courts by threatening people who follow the law and appear for their hearings as directed by the court. This unlawful scheme will chill participation in the legal process and violates the fundamental principles of due process and fairness that underpin our legal system,' said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which helped bring the new lawsuit. The administration's approach has at times led to high-profile incidents. Such was the case in April when a state judge in Wisconsin allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant appearing before her for a criminal matter evade arrest by federal agents. Federal charges were brought against the jurist – Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan – in a case that many legal experts said underscored the administration's attempt to strong-arm courts around the country as it pushes ahead with controversial immigration policies. Dugan has pleaded not guilty.
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Rep. Krishnamoorthi On Trump, Nvidia Chips, China
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) shares his concerns on Nvidia being able to sell their H20 chips in China stating it's inconsistent with the Trump Administration and discusses what the Administration should do instead to have a good trade deal with China. Rep. Krishnamoorthi speaks with Kailey Leinz and Tyler Kendall on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
New York Times
24 minutes ago
- New York Times
Spurned U.S. Attorney Clings to Job by Being Appointed His Own Assistant
President Trump's embattled interim U.S. attorney in Albany, N.Y., is back leading the office under an unusual new title, just days after a panel of judges refused to appoint him to lead the office permanently. According to a letter from the Justice Department's human resources division, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, John A. Sarcone III has been named 'special attorney to the attorney general.' The appointment, the letter says, gives him the powers of a U.S. attorney, and is 'indefinite.' The move means that Mr. Sarcone is the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, according to a spokesman for the office, as well as its first assistant. It is unclear how Mr. Sarcone could occupy two positions at once. The title of special attorney has historically been granted to officials with a particular expertise to lead difficult or complex prosecutions, such as that of Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist. It does not appear to have ever been bestowed upon a leader of a U.S. attorney's office. For now, the appointment appears to allow Mr. Sarcone, who has scrapped publicly with journalists and the police, to effectively ignore Monday's decision by the panel of judges to spurn him. Mr. Sarcone declined to comment. Though Mr. Sarcone's situation is unusual, it reflects a presidential administration that has shattered legal norms and continues to appoint lawyers with little prosecutorial experience to run U.S. attorney's offices. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
