President Trump will meet with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky today to hash out a deal regarding US access to Ukraine’s “critical” minerals – including “transition minerals" necessary for decarbonizing the global economy (like graphite and lithium). Demand for these transition minerals is projected to soar, with the International Energy Agency estimating a quadrupling of demand by 2040 to meet Paris Agreement goals.

There is no question that the US needs these minerals. However, even with attempts to secure access by pressuring Ukraine, or threatening to take over Greenland, efforts to secure US mineral supply chains will fail if the US proceeds with its gutting of social and environmental safeguards and rollback of anti-corruption requirements. History has shown that shortsighted efforts to bypass sound governance measures and to fast-track mining projects without regard for environmental and community safeguards risk undermining the sustainability of these projects over the long term.

President Trump has already attacked important anti-corruption and transparency measures and paused implementation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) through an Executive Order which claims that, “American national security depends in substantial part on the United States and its companies gaining strategic business advantages whether in critical minerals, deep-water ports, or other key infrastructure or assets.” Nothing could be further from the truth: suspending anti-corruption measures will not make companies more competitive.

It might seem obvious, but corruption is in fact bad for international business and increases the risk of supply chain disruptions, including for critical transition minerals. Corruption stifles economic growth, reduces the mining sector’s contribution to domestic revenues, and undermines trust in government and companies. In countries where corruption is rampant, foreign multinationals often fare poorly.

Project 2025 includes plans to repeal Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, vital transparency legislation which requires companies to disclose the payments that they make to governments for mineral resources. This law ensures that citizens in resource rich countries have the information they need to hold their governments accountable for investing revenues in ways that benefit the country and the communities directly impacted by mining projects. Plenty of companies have supported Section 1504, themselves recognizing the value of corporate transparency.

Anti-corruption and transparency measures like FCPA and Dodd Frank 1504 help to ensure that resource-rich countries get their fair share of benefits reaped from mining projects, and that these do not accrue only to corporate and elite interests. In the past, many resource-rich countries have fallen victim to the “resource curse”. Frontline communities, including women and Indigenous peoples, often bear the brunt of mining project impacts while receiving limited benefits. This social breakdown stalls projects and can grind mining to a halt.

When governments attempt to fast-track projects by eliminating anti-corruption and transparency measures, bypassing environmental and community safeguards, and neglecting to include local participation in decision making, they do so at the risk of losing their “social license” to operate (i.e. acceptance of mining operations among local stakeholders). The lack of a social license to operate ranks among the top five risks for mining companies in 2025, as does environmental stewardship. Moving mining projects forward with opaque contracts and shady practices, limited revenue transparency, and inadequate environmental protections and community engagement will set the stage for increasing citizen mistrust and social conflict.

Over the years, numerous mining projects have been derailed due to social protest resulting from concerns related to environmental issues and mistrust of mining, for example in Panama, Guatemala, Serbia and Peru. Governments can mitigate the risk of costly delays and project stoppages by instituting measures to promote transparency and participation in decision making, including ensuring respect for the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous peoples and customary land holders. Strong anti-corruption measures will likewise be key if the US is to effectively access critical minerals. This will include in legislation and regulations, bilateral and multilateral collaborations like the Mineral Security Partnership, and trade agreements. Oxfam and partners have developed a number of specific recommendations for preventing corruption in energy transition mineral supply chains which can be found here.

If we want to ensure sustainable supply chains over the long-term, we need to be sure that resource-rich countries get a good deal for their minerals, that communities have a real say in whether and how these projects move forward, and that safeguards prevent environmental harm and human rights abuses. If the US wants long-term access to minerals in Ukraine—or any other resource-rich country—this cannot be achieved without communities also benefiting for the long term.