That marked a significant shift from the US policy on minerals in Congo. Until recently, the US showed little interest in investing in Congo’s mining sector, as American companies saw the country as “risky, corrupt, and opaque” for investment.

By contrast, China has, in less than two decades, steadily ramped up investments there, even acquiring interests previously owned by US companies, to become the largest investor in Congo’s mining sector.

Chinese infrastructure investment commitments in Congo were valued at US$7 billion last year, making China the largest investor in the country.

A report by the Atlantic Council last month said China, the US and the European Union were “engaged in a technological race spurring competition for access to these critical minerals”, and at the centre was the DR Congo, which was “being courted by these powers like never before”.

Kai Xue, a Beijing-based China-Africa mining lawyer, took a positive view of the potential Congo-America minerals-for-security deal, arguing that US President Donald Trump’s engagement signalled genuine interest.

He said that while lithium was strategically important, Congo’s greatest economic potential was in copper, particularly for the green transition. The country is the world’s second-largest copper producer.

Xue said copper output could “triple again”, potentially making Congo the world’s largest producer of the metal by 2040 and enabling it to achieve middle-income status based on copper alone.

He said that if a US company were to secure lithium interests, prompting the US to promote regional stability and thus boost copper mining growth, the scenario would benefit all stakeholders – Congo, Chinese mining companies and the global green energy transition.

Chris Berry, head of US-based commodities advisory firm House Mountain Partners, acknowledged the Trump administration’s rationale for wanting a presence in Africa but questioned whether the minerals-for-security deal could go ahead.

“What or who defines ‘security’ ? Are the economics of a deposit irrelevant, meaning if the mining does not make economic sense, are the security guarantees still enforceable ?” he asked.

“Given the plethora of critical mineral deposits in more reliable geopolitical jurisdictions, it is somewhat surprising that KoBold has decided to focus on the [DR Congo] as opposed to elsewhere,” Berry added.

“I will be curious to see what the terms of these deals are when the ink is dry on the contracts. I don’t think the dust has settled here yet.”