MxM News

Quick Hit:

Senior Trump advisor Massad Boulos says the U.S. is brokering a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda that will be paired with “Ukraine-style” mineral agreements to stabilize the war-torn region.

Key Details:

• The U.S. wants Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace treaty and, on the same day, finalize critical mineral supply deals with Washington. Boulos told Reuters that both deals are expected within two months.

• Rwanda’s side of the treaty involves halting support for M23 insurgents, while the DRC has pledged to address Rwanda’s concerns about the Hutu-dominated FDLR militant group.

• DRC President Tshisekedi has floated the idea of giving the U.S. exclusive access to Congolese minerals in exchange for help against M23. “Our partnership would provide the U.S. with a strategic advantage,” he wrote in a letter to President Trump.

Diving Deeper:

According to a Thursday report from Reuters, President Donald Trump’s administration is accelerating efforts to finalize a dual-track strategy in central Africa—pushing for a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, while simultaneously brokering “Ukraine-style” mineral deals with both nations.

Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser on Africa, told Reuters that the administration expects the mineral agreement with Congo to be signed on the same day as the peace treaty, followed shortly by a separate deal with Rwanda. “The [agreement] with the DRC is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources,” Boulos explained, while noting Rwanda’s potential in refining and trading minerals is also significant.

The DRC and Rwanda have set a tight timetable, agreeing to exchange draft treaty proposals on May 2nd and finalize the accord by mid-May. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to preside over the next round of negotiations in Washington.

Rwanda’s cooperation hinges on its withdrawal of support for M23 rebels, who have taken over key territories in eastern Congo. These insurgents have even paraded through captured towns alongside Rwandan troops, prompting international condemnation. In return, Congo has committed to addressing Rwanda’s longstanding concern over the presence of the FDLR—a militant group composed largely of Hutu fighters accused of plotting to overthrow Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government. The FDLR has been active in the region for years and remains a major point of contention.

The instability in eastern Congo—home to over a hundred armed groups—has prevented investors from tapping into the country’s vast mineral wealth. The DRC holds an estimated $24 trillion in untapped resources, including cobalt, copper, lithium, and tantalum, all essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy systems, and defense applications. Boulos emphasized that no deal will go forward unless the region is pacified: “Investors want security before they invest billions.”

Reports suggest M23 has seized control of major mining operations, funneling stolen minerals into Rwanda’s supply chain. Though the UN’s peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, was designed to stabilize the region, it has been ineffective during this latest wave of violence. President Tshisekedi asked the mission to withdraw last year, and several countries—including South Africa, Malawi, and Tanzania—are now pulling their peacekeepers after M23 captured the regional capital of Goma in January.

Red Cross teams began evacuating trapped Congolese soldiers and their families from rebel-held areas on Wednesday. At least 17 UN peacekeepers have been killed so far this year.

In a March letter to President Trump, President Tshisekedi made his case for a strategic partnership, offering exclusive U.S. access to Congo’s mineral wealth in exchange for American support against the insurgency. “Your election has ushered in the golden age for America,” he wrote, describing the proposed deal as a “strategic advantage” for the United States.

Boulos, who has longstanding business ties in Africa, quickly visited the DRC following the letter and began working to finalize the terms of the proposed agreement.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.

The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).

According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.

First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.

In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.

Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.

Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.

Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute