Lifting Sanctions on Eritrea Is Long Overdue—But So Is Honest Reporting

By Bereket Tekle

Recent reports, most notably from The Wall Street Journal, that the Trump administration is exploring lifting sanctions on Eritrea should have been a moment of clarity. Instead, it became yet another example of how the Eritrea story is too often filtered through a distorted and dismissive lens.

Let’s be clear: lifting these sanctions is not some bold new concession. It is a long-overdue correction of a policy that should never have existed in the first place.

For years, the United States imposed sanctions that many Eritreans viewed as unilateral, unjustified, and disconnected from reality on the ground. These measures did not meaningfully advance U.S. strategic interests, nor did they bring about the political outcomes their architects claimed to seek. What they did do, however, was punish ordinary Eritreans and entrench mistrust between two nations that have no fundamental reason to be adversaries.

Yet instead of acknowledging this failure, the Wall Street Journal chose to frame the potential lifting of sanctions in a way that subtly reinforces the same tired narratives—casting Eritrea as a problem to be managed rather than a sovereign nation that has been unfairly targeted. The tone matters. The framing matters. And when influential outlets default to insinuation over introspection, they perpetuate the very policies now being reconsidered.

The truth is uncomfortable for some in Washington: Eritrea has been subjected to sustained pressure across multiple administrations, often driven less by objective national interest and more by the influence of a small circle of policymakers with entrenched views. Figures such as Susan Rice are frequently cited by critics as having championed a hardline approach toward Eritrea since the late 1990s—an approach that left little room for reassessment, dialogue, or nuance.

This is not how sound foreign policy should be made.

Sanctions should be tools of last resort, grounded in clear evidence and measurable goals. In Eritrea’s case, they became an almost reflexive instrument—applied repeatedly, with shifting justifications, and rarely subjected to meaningful review. That is not strategy; it is inertia dressed up as policy.

If the Trump administration is now reconsidering this approach, it deserves recognition—but also scrutiny. A true reset in U.S.–Eritrea relations cannot simply be transactional or temporary. It must begin with an honest acknowledgment that past policies were flawed, and that engagement—not isolation—is the more effective path forward.

Equally, the media must do better. When reporting on countries like Eritrea, outlets such as The Wall Street Journal have a responsibility to move beyond recycled narratives and examine the full context—including the possibility that U.S. policy itself has contributed to the very tensions it claims to address.

“Better late than never” may apply here, but lateness has consequences. Years of misplaced policy have cost time, trust, and opportunity. Correcting course is welcome, but it should also come with accountability from policymakers and from those who shape the public understanding of these decisions.

Anything less risks repeating the same cycle under a different headline.