Jesca Mutamba
Dozens of members of the United States Congress have raised concerns about the Trump administration’s critical minerals agreements with the Democratic Republic of Congo and other countries.
They warn that the deals could undermine human rights, environmental protections, local economic development and congressional oversight.
ALSO READ: Power, minerals, sovereignty: The rise of US–Africa partnerships
In a letter dated August 17 and addressed to US Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, 54 lawmakers questioned the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed with DR Congo, alongside critical minerals arrangements involving other African and developing countries.
ALSO READ: Who really profits from DR Congo’s minerals?
On DR Congo, the lawmakers argued that the agreement could give US companies preferential access to the country’s mineral resources while conflict and human rights violations continue.
“We were alarmed to learn the Trump administration has since signed a ‘Strategic Partnership Agreement’ (SPA) with the DRC which calls for sweeping changes to the DRC’s constitution and grants U.S. companies a ‘right of first offer’ on mining concessions,” they said.
The lawmakers said the agreement “has paved the way for foreign mining companies to extract the DRC’s mineral wealth amid a violent conflict, all while mass violence and human rights violations continue.”
They linked these concerns to reports that the US helped fund a paramilitary force to guard mining operations in the DRC and that the administration may lift Magnitsky Act sanctions on Israeli businessman Dan Gertler to facilitate a cobalt deal.
ALSO READ: Latest New York Times article on Congo inadvertently exposes real culprits in Congolese mess
They asked the administration to explain what safeguards are in place to ensure that any US-backed paramilitary force in DR Congo would respect human rights and not interfere with internationally recognised labour rights, including freedom of association.
The same concern about the impact of mineral deals on people and communities appears elsewhere in the letter. For Zambia, for example, the lawmakers criticised the reported use of US development assistance as leverage in negotiations for a critical minerals agreement.
“We were troubled to learn that U.S. development assistance is being used as leverage in critical minerals negotiations,” they said.
They described it as “callous and unacceptable” for the State Department to threaten to withhold HIV medicines and other lifesaving assistance for Zambians to pressure Lusaka into signing a critical minerals agreement.
ALSO READ: Analysts tackle DR Congo’s mineral resources, FDLR, governance failures
The lawmakers also connected reductions in US foreign aid, particularly healthcare assistance, to the interests of American mining companies, asking what assessment the administration had made of the effect of disrupted assistance on local workforces and US companies operating abroad.
Concerns about the terms offered to mineral-producing countries were also raised in relation to Malaysia, Argentina, Ecuador, Cambodia and Bangladesh.
The lawmakers said the US-Malaysia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade prevents export restrictions on critical minerals that some emerging economies use to promote local processing, increase government revenue and develop downstream industries.
Similarly, they said the agreements with Argentina, Ecuador, Cambodia and Bangladesh require those countries to facilitate US mining investment without binding environmental, labour or human rights commitments.
The lawmakers argued that the US approach could leave developing countries focused on supplying minerals while limiting their ability to build industries around processing and manufacturing.
“How is the administration ensuring that its critical minerals strategy does not limit partner countries to extractive roles but instead supports their ability to develop value-added processing and manufacturing capacity that promotes economic development rather than dependence?” the letter says.
ALSO READ: How can Africa make the most of its minerals?
Environmental and labour protections form another common thread running through the agreements, according to the letter.
The lawmakers said poorly regulated mining has a “well-documented record of environmental damage, displacement and harm to Indigenous communities, and widespread labor and human rights violations.”
They argued that the problem is not limited to one country or one agreement.
“Any agreement facilitating trade in critical minerals must directly address these harms and avoid reinforcing extractive models that prioritize mining profits over communities and workers,” they said.
They also questioned provisions in the US-Malaysia agreement that encourage “streamlining permitting processes”, arguing that such provisions could give the Trump administration a channel to influence mining policy in partner countries while limiting public debate and congressional involvement.
ALSO READ: Africa must process its own minerals, say Tinubu, Nguema
The lawmakers noted that “streamlining” mining policies in the US has included limiting environmental reviews, reducing opportunities for public input and weakening environmental protections.
They also asked whether the administration would incorporate mineral circularity reusing, refurbishing and recycling minerals into its critical minerals arrangements to reduce waste, create jobs and strengthen supply chains.
The lawmakers also raised a separate concern over proposed price floors for critical minerals. They warned that, depending on how such mechanisms are designed, they could facilitate cartel-like behaviour, create antitrust risks and unintentionally benefit Chinese firms elsewhere in the supply chain.
Despite their criticism, the Congress members said they support efforts to strengthen US critical minerals supply chains, build clean energy and technology industries and reduce dependence on China.
Their concern, they said, is with how those objectives are being pursued.
“Several of these ‘deals’ raise concerns regarding transparency, labor and human rights, environmental protections, and insufficient congressional oversight,” they said.
www.newtimes.co.rw
