DRC–Rwanda peace deal: Trump claims ‘great day for Africa’ as U.S. eyes critical minerals

President Donald Trump on June 27, 2025, presided over the signing of a U.S.-brokered peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. The agreement, celebrated at the White House with senior officials from both countries present, was described by Trump as a long-awaited resolution to “one of the worst wars anyone’s ever seen.” Declaring that “the violence and destruction comes to an end,” he said the deal ushers in a new era of “hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace” for Central Africa.

Earlier that day, the formal signing took place at the U.S. State Department and was attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senior Adviser for Africa Massad Boulos. Trump later hosted both diplomatic delegations in the Oval Office, where he attributed much of the agreement’s success to Boulos’s behind-the-scenes negotiations.

Rubio hailed the deal as an overdue but critical milestone, emphasizing Trump’s personal investment in the outcome. “This is an important moment after 30 years of war. President Trump is a president of peace. He really does want peace. He prioritizes it above all else,” he said.

What historic conflict does the DRC–Rwanda peace deal aim to resolve after 30 years of violence?

The agreement seeks to halt a decades-long cycle of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been shaped by ethnic tensions, competition over mineral resources, and the legacy of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The war in the DRC has claimed more than 6 million lives since 1996, according to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, with repeated surges in violence attributed to both domestic militias and foreign-backed rebel groups.

The latest flashpoint erupted in early 2025, when Rwandan military support for the March 23 Movement (M23) led to the rebel group’s takeover of major towns including Goma and Bukavu. The offensive reignited global condemnation and destabilized the eastern region. Protests in Kinshasa and international pressure—catalyzed by UN Security Council Resolution 2773—pushed for immediate de-escalation.

In this context, the U.S.-led mediation effort focused on crafting a multi-pronged agreement that included not only security commitments but also an economic framework aimed at stabilizing the mineral-rich region.

What are the peace deal’s core commitments on armed groups, security coordination, and displaced persons?

The agreement outlines mutual commitments to end all support for armed non-state actors. Rwanda is expected to withdraw its military personnel from eastern DRC within 90 days, while both nations will work together to disarm and reintegrate rebel fighters. A joint security coordination mechanism has been established to verify troop movements, manage border surveillance, and resolve disputes without military escalation.

Additionally, the peace accord provides for the voluntary return of displaced refugees, whose numbers have grown steadily due to repeated outbreaks of violence. Both countries pledged to ensure safe humanitarian corridors and begin reconstruction of key social infrastructure damaged during the conflict.

Why is the U.S. emphasizing mineral rights in its diplomacy with the DRC and Rwanda?

While the peace deal’s humanitarian language dominated headlines, Trump also emphasized the economic opportunities tied to the agreement. He stated that as part of the broader framework, the United States would be receiving “a lot of mineral rights” from the DRC. These mineral access rights are expected to position American firms to invest more actively in cobalt, lithium, tantalum, and gold mining operations—critical for electric vehicles, electronics, and defense technologies.

The agreement includes provisions to introduce greater transparency in regional mining practices and expand foreign trade rooted in ethically sourced critical minerals. Washington has long sought to reduce U.S. industry dependence on Chinese-controlled mineral supply chains, and this deal provides an opening to reshape that landscape through commercial partnerships anchored in diplomatic agreements.

How are experts and institutions reacting to the resource-linked terms of the peace deal?

While Trump celebrated the mineral dimension of the accord, some institutional observers have expressed concern that it may reduce peace to a commodity exchange. Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Africa Program, warned that the deal risked prioritizing mineral access over justice, accountability, and structural peacebuilding.

“Minerals are only one driver of conflict,” he said. “The United States and its allies must support a robust legal and reconciliation framework, including reparations for victims, disarmament and reintegration programs, and accountability for war crimes.”

Other diplomatic circles, including members of the African Union and East African Community, have indicated cautious optimism. However, they stress that implementation will require not only American oversight but also regional ownership. Past peace efforts in the region—including the failed 2013 Nairobi Declaration—collapsed due to lack of enforcement, political will, and inclusive governance.

What makes this deal different from past failed peace efforts in the Great Lakes region?

Unlike previous accords, this deal benefits from direct U.S. engagement, sustained shuttle diplomacy from Massad Boulos, and economic incentives embedded within the geopolitical agreement. By tying mineral transparency, trade, and joint development to security commitments, the framework aims to align the financial interests of all parties with peace.

Analysts also point out that this agreement is the first to include an explicitly defined security verification mechanism co-managed by both nations, with periodic assessments involving third-party observers. The presence of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Kinshasa and Kigali will also serve to anchor implementation phases over the next 12 months.

What are the key challenges to implementation in the months ahead?

Despite the momentum from the Oval Office ceremony, enforcement challenges remain significant. Rwandan troop withdrawal will need independent verification. The disarmament and integration of M23 rebels—some of whom remain opposed to reintegration—poses another complex hurdle. There are also fears that rival militias or foreign spoilers could exploit the vacuum created during the transitional period.

Public trust is another obstacle. Earlier this year, riots in Kinshasa targeted both Rwandan and Western diplomatic properties, reflecting deep skepticism about international intervention. If peace benefits are not visible at the grassroots level—particularly in North Kivu, Ituri, and South Kivu—support for the agreement could rapidly erode.

What future milestones are expected as the peace and mineral framework unfolds?

Within the next 90 days, joint security teams are expected to finalize the operational blueprint for patrol coordination and troop withdrawal monitoring. Economic delegations from both countries are scheduled to reconvene in Doha to draft terms for U.S. investment projects, including guidelines for sustainable mining and export procedures. An additional trilateral agreement on regional customs harmonization is also under negotiation.

A White House economic summit involving American, Congolese, and Rwandan private sector leaders is tentatively scheduled for September 2025. That meeting is expected to unveil a U.S.-backed public–private investment fund aimed at infrastructure development in post-conflict mining zones.

Can this deal translate diplomacy into durable peace?

Whether the peace deal lives up to its promise depends on three factors: political resolve, institutional enforcement, and local participation. By tying peace to economic opportunity, the U.S. has created both incentive and leverage. But that same transactional nature—especially around mineral rights—risks overshadowing the justice, healing, and community reintegration needed to resolve long-standing grievances.

Still, the scale and visibility of this deal, combined with Trump’s personal involvement and global media attention, elevate it above prior diplomatic attempts. If implemented transparently, it could become a blueprint for resolving other resource-linked conflicts in the Global South. But without sustained follow-through, the region may again slip into violence.