The Trump administration is leading a high-stakes, yet controversial, peace initiative aimed at resolving the decades-long conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This effort serves dual purposes: to foster regional stability and simultaneously secure American access to the DRC’s vast mineral wealth—resources crucial to powering the technological revolutions in IT, artificial intelligence, and clean energy.
As President Donald Trump prepares to host the leaders of the DRC and Rwanda to seal a peace agreement, this diplomatic venture embodies a novel, transactional model of peace-making interwoven with strategic economic interests.
The Geostrategic Context: Minerals, Conflict, and Great Power Competition
The eastern DRC has been mired in violent conflict for more than 30 years, with multiple armed groups, including the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels, contesting control over resource-rich territories. This sustained instability has deterred significant Western investment, even as China emerged as the dominant foreign actor securing control over much of the DRC’s cobalt, lithium, tantalum, and copper reserves—minerals indispensable for batteries, electronics, electric vehicles, and military hardware.
President Félix Tshisekedi’s administration has overtly solicited U.S. involvement, offering concessions on mineral mining rights in exchange for security guarantees and assistance against insurgencies. Tshisekedi’s outreach culminated in the U.S.-brokered peace deal signed in Washington on June 27, 2025, between the DRC and Rwanda.
This deal goes beyond ceasefire commitments to propose a “regional economic integration framework” designed to block illicit mineral smuggling—an acute problem allowing rebel groups and foreign actors to siphon off valuable resources—and to foster mutually beneficial partnerships aimed at economic development.
From the U.S. perspective, as underscored by Trump’s own declaration of gaining “a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo,” the peace deal is a gateway for American companies to enter or expand their footprint in the DRC’s mineral sector, curtailing Chinese dominance—a strategic imperative amid intensifying global competition for critical minerals.
Transactional Peace-Making: Performance and Commercial Deal-Making
As observed by Prof. Alex de Waal of the World Peace Foundation, the Trump administration’s approach combines high-profile political performance with commercial objectives, akin to Trump’s peace efforts in Ukraine. This model aims to secure political gains domestically while simultaneously opening lucrative markets for U.S. investors. Critics argue the approach risks privileging economic interests at the expense of sustainable peace. Nevertheless, proponents suggest that if the initiative reduces bloodshed—even temporarily—it represents progress in a conflict long resistant to conventional diplomatic efforts.
Challenges: Sovereignty, Moral Hazards, and the Risk of Resource Bartering
Experts caution that the DRC risks compromising its sovereignty over mineral resources by potentially locking itself into long-term extraction deals favoring foreign investors with uncertain returns for the Congolese people. Prof. Hanri Mostert of the University of Cape Town warns against “resource-bartering” reminiscent of Chinese and Russian deals elsewhere in Africa, such as China’s infrastructure-for-oil arrangements in Angola. Such deals often constrain recipient countries’ economic agency, tying them to fixed terms irrespective of changing market conditions.
The moral hazard of legitimizing mineral trading that has historically funded armed groups (“blood minerals”) remains a profound ethical concern. U.S. companies have traditionally been wary of entering the DRC owing to security risks and reputational damage. The peace deal’s promise to stabilize the region may partially address these concerns, paving the way for American investment.
Nonetheless, skepticism persists regarding how long the DRC must cede mineral rights to U.S. interests to maintain peace and whether the economic benefits will meaningfully uplift local populations or primarily enrich multinational corporations.
Regional and Security Dimensions: The Role of Rwanda and the M23 Rebellion
The peace deal’s success hinges on complex regional dynamics, particularly the contentious role of Rwanda and the M23 rebels, who currently control large swathes of eastern DRC and are accused by UN experts of smuggling minerals across borders. Rwanda denies formal support for the M23, but evidence suggests deep involvement. The agreement’s “security coordination mechanism” aims to address this by fostering cooperation and disarmament, yet trust deficits and divergent interpretations of troop withdrawals, especially concerning Rwanda’s forces and the neutralization of the FDLR militia, complicate implementation.
Parallel Mediation Efforts and Geopolitical Competition
Alongside the U.S. initiative, Qatar—an ally of Washington—is mediating between the DRC government and the M23, focusing on internal Congolese political reconciliation. The coexistence of multiple mediation processes underscores the geopolitical complexity, with Gulf states expanding their influence in the region for economic and strategic gain. Coordinating these efforts effectively is critical to prevent fragmentation that could undermine the peace process.
Economic Stakes and US Commercial Interests
The Trump administration has launched the U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund aimed at reshaping global investment flows to secure access to strategic minerals and reduce reliance on competing powers such as China. Congolese President Tshisekedi’s direct offers to Trump promise exclusive mining opportunities to this fund, potentially locking in American access for decades. The DRC is estimated to hold mineral reserves worth $25 trillion, including cobalt, lithium, and tantalum—materials vital to emerging technologies and national security.
American companies envision multibillion-dollar investments that would operate transparently and stimulate local economies, according to Trump’s senior Africa adviser Massad Boulos. The deal hopes to transform the DRC from a conflict-ridden mineral supplier to a stabilized partner in America’s supply chains.
Risks and the Road Ahead
Although the peace deal is hailed as a breakthrough, long-term success is far from guaranteed. Armed groups remain active, political mistrust endures, and the intricacies of resource governance pose persistent challenges. Critics warn that heavy U.S. investment could repeat patterns of exploitation and dependency if not carefully managed through robust governance reforms, human rights accountability, and local empowerment.
Moreover, the ongoing U.S. strategy to attach economic incentives to peace raises ethical and geopolitical questions about sovereignty, neo-colonialism, and the true cost of peace. As Prof. Mostert asks, “How long will DR Congo have to give its cobalt to U.S. investors? What is the price for peace?”
Also Read: Congo, Rwanda, and Peacemaker Trump: A New Chapter in the Great Game?
The Trump administration’s push to broker peace in eastern DR Congo and secure strategic access to its mineral wealth illustrates the multifaceted nexus of geopolitics, economics, and conflict resolution in the 21st century. While the peace deal offers a hopeful path toward ending one of Africa’s longest-running conflicts, it is deeply entangled with the global struggle for critical minerals essential to technological supremacy.
For the deal to be more than a transactional pause, it must incorporate genuine conflict resolution, respect for Congolese sovereignty, and transparent, equitable resource governance. Otherwise, the specter of resource-driven instability and new forms of economic dependency could imperil both regional peace and the ethical standing of U.S. foreign policy.
