In a potential pivot in U.S.-Ukraine relations under the Trump administration, the United States has approved its first sale of military equipment to Ukraine since President Donald Trump assumed office. This landmark decision, disclosed through a communication to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, comes in the immediate aftermath of a sweeping bilateral minerals agreement signed between the two countries. The U.S. State Department has certified a proposed license to export “$50 million or more” in defense hardware and services to Ukraine, marking a significant shift from the previous suspension of military support following Trump’s inauguration. This license, categorized as a direct commercial sale under the Arms Export Control Act, allows American defense companies to transfer approved military goods and services directly to Ukraine, pending congressional notification and review.
The minerals deal—signed in Washington by Ukraine’s First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—appears to have unlocked a pathway for renewed strategic engagement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in his nightly televised address, directly linked this agreement to a recent encounter with President Trump on the sidelines of Pope Francis’s funeral, heralding the deal as a tangible and immediate result of that Vatican meeting. Zelenskyy emphasized the equitable nature of the agreement, lauding it as a “truly equal” accord that permits “quite significant investment” in Ukraine. The terms of the minerals deal, which will now be subject to ratification by Ukraine’s parliament, include the establishment of a bilateral fund, financed by new extraction licenses for critical minerals, oil, and gas resources.
Kyiv officials are cautiously optimistic that this strategic minerals partnership may serve as a prelude to more comprehensive defense collaboration. Mykhailo Podolyak, senior advisor to Zelenskyy, acknowledged that while the agreement does not explicitly commit the U.S. to any specific weapons transfers, it significantly widens the aperture for bilateral talks on the procurement of American-made weapons systems. He stated that the American administration is now “open to these discussions,” suggesting an emergent flexibility in U.S. posture towards arming Ukraine.
The final agreement excludes previously allocated military and humanitarian aid—funds which Trump had controversially sought to claw back—and explicitly ensures that Ukraine’s European Union integration efforts will not be impeded. Furthermore, it prohibits U.S. corporate monopolization of the Ukrainian energy sector, affirming instead that American firms will be permitted to participate in competitive bidding on fair terms. These provisions reflect a notable softening from earlier U.S. drafts, which were rejected by Zelenskyy in prior months as unduly punitive. In February, a White House ceremony to formalize the deal collapsed spectacularly after an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Senator J.D. Vance devolved into recriminations, prompting Zelenskyy’s abrupt departure from Washington.
Podolyak attributed the successful renegotiation of terms not to a change in U.S. policy substance, but rather to a shift in diplomatic tone and tactics. He characterized the Trump administration’s public rhetoric as intentionally aggressive, designed to secure a stronger bargaining position, while private negotiations remained pragmatic and result-oriented. “They just use this aggression to try to improve their starting position,” he explained, acknowledging that real progress was made despite the bellicose atmospherics.
Nonetheless, as U.S.-supplied weapons must now be purchased outright, Kyiv will face the difficult task of calibrating its requests based on operational priorities and financial constraints. Podolyak remarked that Ukraine will need to be “carefully selective” in determining which American weapons systems are truly indispensable. He cited drone technology as one area where Ukraine might pursue indigenous development, reserving external purchases for strategic assets unavailable through domestic production. One such priority remains the potential acquisition of advanced air defense systems, with Zelenskyy previously expressing interest in acquiring Patriot missile batteries—likely through either the newly established minerals fund or coordinated European financing mechanisms.
The specifics of the newly approved $50 million in defense exports remain opaque, and it is not yet publicly known what categories of equipment or services are covered under the license. Nevertheless, the resumption of arms sales—albeit on a modest scale—signals a reactivation of U.S.-Ukrainian defense ties that had been effectively frozen since the Trump administration came into power. The last major U.S. aid package to Ukraine was enacted under President Joe Biden, with Congress authorizing a $1 billion tranche of expedited military assistance in the final days of his administration.
While the Kremlin’s public reaction has been subdued, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev condemned the development in unequivocal terms, portraying it as an act of subjugation. In a Telegram post, Medvedev accused the Trump administration of coercing Ukraine into surrendering its natural wealth in exchange for continued American military support. “Trump has broken the Kyiv regime to the point where they will have to pay for US aid with mineral resources,” he declared, deriding the agreement as a capitulation by a “disappearing country.”
Yet from Kyiv’s perspective, the revised mineral accord and prospective arms sales represent a modest but meaningful recalibration of American foreign policy under Trump—potentially restoring a modicum of strategic reliability to a relationship that had, in recent months, appeared increasingly strained. With Ukrainian lawmakers preparing to ratify the deal within days, and with talks about weapons procurement tentatively underway, the implications of this bilateral thaw may soon extend far beyond the initial scope of the minerals sector, reshaping not only Ukraine’s defense posture but also its broader geopolitical trajectory.
Gros News 
Leave a comment