The verbal confrontation last Friday at the White House might have seemed ordinary had it occurred behind closed doors. However, its live broadcast stunned many observers as the initially friendly discussion quickly escalated, surpassing any diplomatic norms. Why did this happen?

U.S. Economic National Security

It is well known that the traditional economic model based on capital and labor (Cobb-Douglas) is no longer the primary driver of growth in major economies like the United States and China. Having reached maturity, these nations now rely on technology as a key growth engine, stimulating both consumer demand and productivity. As a result, Washington has focused on technological research and its transformation into marketable goods and services.

However, this sector is highly dependent on rare earth minerals, of which China controls nearly 80% of global production and refining. Ukraine, on the other hand, possesses vast natural resources, including more than 115 types of strategic minerals essential to the technology, defense, and energy industries. According to the Canadian firm SecDev, their estimated value reaches $26 trillion.

Donald Trump’s trade policies, which could impose heavy tariffs on China, could disrupt American supply chains, particularly in the defense and military sectors, which are highly dependent on these minerals. Ukraine, however, holds significant reserves.

Trump, therefore, views an agreement with Kyiv—whereby the U.S. would secure 50% of the revenues from Ukraine’s mineral exploitation in exchange for continued American aid—as a win-win strategy. For the former president, Ukraine must compensate for the approximately $180 billion in aid provided by Washington since 2014. At the same time, the U.S. would reduce its reliance on China, bolster its national economic security, and strengthen its position in global technological competition. Such a deal would also increase American influence in Europe and hinder China’s efforts to dominate European markets.

The current dispute revolves around the military guarantees demanded by Volodymyr Zelensky, which Trump appears unwilling to provide. The Ukrainian president argues that a ceasefire without American assurances would fail to bind Russia, which has previously invaded several former Soviet states. Trump, for his part, is reluctant to commit the U.S. to additional military obligations beyond what it already provides within NATO, particularly as he believes Washington spends too much on defending its allies worldwide.

A U.S.-European Rift?

The growing divergences between the United States and Europe on major geopolitical issues are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly in strategic diplomacy and economic policies. This is obvious in the NATO debate, where Trump has long pressured Europeans to increase their financial contributions by purchasing more American weapons.

Should the White House altercation be seen as a direct confrontation between the U.S. and Europe? The answer is not straightforward, but several key factors highlight the evolving transatlantic relationship:

A major geopolitical rift over Ukraine: Following the clash between Trump and Zelensky, several European leaders—including those of France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Finland—quickly reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. These declarations underscore European concerns over America’s commitment to European security in the face of what they perceive as Russia’s historic ambitions. Calls for an independent European defense strategy are growing louder, requiring over $1 trillion in investment to develop a modern military force with tactical and operational capabilities to counter any potential Russian threat.

Rising economic tensions: Trump’s protectionist policies, which imposed tariffs on both allies and adversaries, have particularly alarmed Germany and France. A potential U.S.-Ukraine deal on strategic minerals would deprive Europe of essential resources, leaving it dependent on either the Americans or the Chinese. Moreover, some European leaders see Trump’s approach as an economic betrayal, especially as they expected Washington to help offset their energy losses after cutting off Russian oil and gas.

What Comes Next?

Beyond this diplomatic storm, Donald Trump’s position is becoming increasingly precarious:

He now appears as a defender of Vladimir Putin, placing the U.S. at odds with its traditional allies.

By suspending military aid to Ukraine, he could be seen as an implicit ally of Moscow—something that could damage his standing with American and Western public opinion.

He is struggling to fulfill his campaign promise of swiftly ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

He has failed to secure the mineral deal, which could have been a major economic achievement.

He has also been unable to recover the billions of dollars the U.S. has provided to Ukraine since 2014.

Given this context, diplomatic discussions are likely to resume rapidly, with greater European involvement, as the continent’s leaders appear more united than ever on this critical geopolitical issue.

Zelensky, however, could become the first casualty of this clash. His treatment in Washington reflects a clear sense of disregard from the White House. The U.S. has accused him of corruption and questioned how American funds sent to Ukraine have been used. It is not inconceivable that Trump is setting a trap for Zelensky, pushing him toward resignation in order to install a more compliant leader—one who would accept a ceasefire with Russia without requiring a withdrawal from occupied territories and who would hand over half of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Europe appears to be entering a new phase of rearmament, focusing on deterring external threats, particularly from Russia. The U.K.’s position remains uncertain: traditionally aligned with Washington, Britain may be tempted to re-engage with the European bloc, particularly if Trump imposes new tariffs on British exports.

Ultimately, the current situation is catastrophic for Ukraine, which must now seek alternative allies to compensate for waning American support—an extremely difficult task. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin emerges as the biggest winner, as the Trump-Zelensky confrontation has landed on his desk as an unexpected gift, further strengthening Russia’s position on the global stage.