Sisi welcomes Trump offer to mediate Nile dam dispute, stresses water security

President Abdel Fattah al‑Sisi said he welcomed an offer from U.S. President Donald Trump to mediate the long‑running dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and had replied "by affirming Egypt’s position and concerns about the country’s water security in regard to Ethiopia’s disputed Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam." The exchange opened a new diplomatic chapter in a confrontation that has strained relations across the Nile basin and raised wider regional tensions.

Trump wrote that he was “ready to restart US mediation between Egypt and Ethiopia to responsibly resolve the question of ‘The Nile Water Sharing’ once and for all,” a line he also posted to his social media account. Sisi made his response public on a social platform; accounts differ on whether the Egyptian statement appeared on X or Facebook, with the majority identifying X. That procedural discrepancy did not obscure the substance: Cairo portrayed the U.S. offer as an opportunity to protect a resource it regards as existential.

The GERD, a roughly $5 billion hydroelectric project on a Nile tributary, is a cornerstone of Ethiopia’s development strategy. Addis Ababa presents the dam as essential to economic growth and electrification for a country of more than 120 million people. For Egypt, by contrast, the Nile "represents the lifeline of the Egyptian people." Cairo has warned that filling and operating the dam without a binding agreement could imperil its fresh water supply, food security, and hundreds of thousands of agricultural livelihoods, and has cited potential violations of historical treaties.

Sudan’s leadership publicly welcomed the prospect of renewed U.S. involvement, signaling a rare alignment with Cairo on process if not on every substantive point. Khartoum’s earlier complaints about the GERD have focused on safety and operations, including a lack of real‑time data sharing that has previously contributed to dangerous floods and risks to downstream infrastructure. Ethiopia, however, has steadfastly defended the dam and has not issued an immediate response to the recent U.S. offer and Egyptian acceptance.

The mediation proposal raises immediate diplomatic and legal questions. International law on transboundary watercourses emphasizes equitable and reasonable use and an obligation not to cause significant harm. Any successful negotiation will have to reconcile Ethiopia’s developmental rights with downstream countries’ legitimate concerns about water availability and dam safety. How a revived U.S. role would interact with African Union mechanisms or existing technical committees established over the past decade remains unclear.

A U.S. initiative could provide momentum toward a binding framework on filling schedules, data exchange, and dispute resolution. Yet the proposal also carries risks. External mediation by a power with strategic interests in the region could be viewed in Addis Ababa as infringing on sovereignty or as a vehicle for unequal concessions. Similarly, Cairo and Khartoum will judge any offer by tangible guarantees, not rhetoric, given the stakes for agriculture, urban water supplies, and political stability.

For now, the exchange of letters has moved the diplomatic ball but left critical questions unanswered. Ethiopia’s reaction, the format and legal basis for mediation, and whether other regional or international stakeholders will be formally included are all unresolved. The Nile dispute remains a test of diplomacy where water, sovereignty, and development ambitions collide, and where any resolution will require both technical detail and political compromise.