Minerals Deal With U.S. Faces Rebel Backlash in Eastern Congo

The leader of a Congolese rebel coalition that includes the M23 group has sharply criticized a recent agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States on access to critical minerals, describing it as deeply flawed and unconstitutional and warning that it may be impossible to implement in areas affected by conflict.

Corneille Nangaa, who heads the Alliance Fleuve Congo, or AFC, said the strategic partnership signed in Washington on December 4 failed to reflect the political and security realities on the ground in eastern Congo. Under the agreement, the United States would gain expanded access to the country’s vast reserves of critical minerals, including cobalt, copper, lithium and coltan, in exchange for increased investment, technical support and security cooperation with the Congolese government.

Nangaa argued that the deal was negotiated without meaningful national consensus and ignored the fact that large parts of the mineral rich eastern region remain outside the full control of the central government in Kinshasa. He said agreements of such magnitude should be debated domestically and approved through constitutional processes, rather than concluded abroad while active fighting continues.

Eastern Congo has for decades been plagued by violence involving armed groups, with M23 being one of the most prominent in recent years. The region is also central to global supply chains for minerals essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy technologies and consumer electronics, making it a focal point of international competition and diplomatic interest.

Supporters of the Kinshasa Washington agreement say closer ties with the United States could help formalize the mining sector, reduce the influence of illicit armed groups and bring much needed investment and stability. Congolese officials have argued that security cooperation embedded in the deal could strengthen state authority and protect strategic economic assets.

Critics, however, fear that such agreements risk entrenching inequality, fueling conflict or sidelining local communities if governance and transparency issues are not addressed first. Nangaa’s comments underscore the broader uncertainty surrounding the deal, particularly in conflict affected regions where control over territory, resources and legitimacy remains fiercely contested.