A letter dated January 16, 2026 and attributed to former U.S. President Donald J. Trump, addressed to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, has reignited debate over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and the future governance of the Nile River. Though not a treaty or legally binding document, the letter is drawing intense scrutiny for the diplomatic, legal, and geopolitical signals it sends in one of Africa’s most sensitive transboundary disputes.
A Subtle Move Away From “Historic Rights”
The letter’s most consequential phrase asserts that “no state in this region should unilaterally control the precious resources of the Nile.” Legal analysts note that this language aligns more closely with contemporary international water law than with Egypt’s traditional reliance on the 1929 and 1959 Nile agreements, which Ethiopia has never recognized.
By invoking principles such as equitable and reasonable utilization and the obligation not to cause significant harm, the letter implicitly lends weight to Ethiopia’s long-standing argument that Nile governance must be inclusive, forward-looking, and rooted in post-colonial legal norms.
U.S. Mediation Back on the Table
The offer to “restart U.S. mediation” signals a possible American return to a negotiation process Ethiopia has consistently argued should remain African-led, under the auspices of the African Union (AU).
For Addis Ababa, renewed external mediation raises concerns about power imbalances and the erosion of AU legitimacy. Egypt, meanwhile, has historically favored internationalization, viewing it as a way to amplify diplomatic leverage. Sudan’s position remains fluid, shaped by ongoing internal political instability.
Observers warn that without tight coordination with African institutions, renewed U.S. involvement could shift the focus back to procedural disputes rather than advancing technical and cooperative solutions.
Monitoring and Predictable Releases: A Legal Grey Zone
The letter’s call for a “strong United States role in monitoring” GERD operations and ensuring “predictable water releases during droughts” has raised legal red flags. Monitoring implies enforcement authority, yet no existing treaty grants such powers to any external actor.
Critics argue that predictability guarantees could amount to indirect constraints on Ethiopia’s sovereign control over a dam that was fully financed and constructed domestically. In the absence of a binding, mutually negotiated agreement, such language risks creating political expectations that exceed international legal obligations.
Energy Cooperation Without Conditions
Suggestions that Ethiopia could supply electricity to Egypt and Sudan have been widely welcomed as confidence-building. However, experts stress that electricity trade is governed by commercial contracts, not international water law.
Linking power exports to water concessions, they caution, would set a problematic precedent. Energy cooperation may foster trust, but it remains voluntary and cannot be converted into legal or political compulsion.
Security Concerns and the Risk of Militarization
The letter’s reference to avoiding “major military conflict” underscores U.S. concern about escalation, but it also normalizes the idea that force remains a conceivable option. For Ethiopia, this reinforces long-standing fears that internationalization could securitize what it views as a purely developmental project.
A Signal, Not a Settlement
Legally, the letter appears to validate elements of Ethiopia’s argument for equitable Nile use. Diplomatically, it leans toward Egypt by reopening the door to external mediation. Institutionally, it risks sidelining African-led frameworks. Politically, it raises expectations without offering enforceable commitments.
Policy analysts argue that Ethiopia’s next steps should include anchoring any mediation firmly within the African Union, reaffirming sovereignty over GERD operations under international law, clearly separating water governance from energy cooperation, and insisting that mediation does not evolve into arbitration by pressure.
The letter may not carry legal force. But in the geopolitics of the Nile, signals often shape outcomes long before the law does.