U.S. Officials Press AVZ Minerals to Transfer DRC Lithium Stake to American Buyer

U.S. representatives recently engaged directly with executives of AVZ Minerals, urging the Perth-listed miner to divest its stake in the Manono lithium project in the Democratic Republic of Congo to a U.S. buyer. The meeting was framed as part of Washington’s campaign to shorten supply chains for battery metals critical to the energy transition and national security, reflecting concern about dependence on geopolitical rivals. Direct diplomatic pressure of this kind is notable because it moves beyond incentives and into explicit commercial steering, creating new intersections between foreign policy and deal-making. The episode amplifies legal, regulatory and reputational risks for AVZ: any sale would likely need host-country approvals, could trigger contractual disputes with partners and financiers, and would be scrutinized for its optics among investors. A useful comparator is a contemporaneous U.S.-backed proposal involving Glencore and an Orion-led consortium, which relied on a non-binding memorandum to transfer an economic interest and secure offtake rights while leaving operational control with the incumbent operator. That model—using memoranda and public-private consortia to lock in flows of copper and cobalt—demonstrates how U.S. strategy can be operationalized without immediately changing day-to-day mine management, but it also highlights conditionality: due diligence, definitive documentation and regulatory clearances remain necessary. For Kinshasa, these approaches present trade-offs: they can accelerate capital and technical investment but raise concerns about revenue sharing, local content, environmental and social oversight, and sovereign control over strategic assets. Market consequences are mixed: a U.S.-aligned purchaser could reduce supply-chain vulnerability for American manufacturers, yet the perception that political actors can reshuffle ownership may increase risk premia for projects in Africa. Multinational investors may demand higher returns or avoid assets seen as politically exposed; host governments may seek stronger contractual protections or push back diplomatically. The AVZ episode could therefore become either a one-off tactical intervention or a template copied across commodity classes and jurisdictions, with implications for how critical minerals are governed globally. Policymakers face a choice between near-term supply security gains and the long-term health of the investment climate; corporate actors must sharpen legal strategies and contingency planning; and civil-society and local stakeholders will likely press for clearer guarantees on revenue, jobs and environmental protections if such transactions advance.