As Haiti’s Sovereignty Slips, Washington Tightens Its Grip

US military and Coast Guard ships at Port-au-Prince, Haiti - February 3, 2026. Photo Credit: US Embassy in Haiti

As Haiti’s political transition enters yet another uncertain phase, the question facing the international community is no longer whether the country is in crisis. It is whether Haiti is quietly losing what remains of its sovereignty — and whether the United States is becoming the ultimate arbiter of its political fate.

On February 2, 2026, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Eminent Persons Group met in Washington, D.C., in a consultative session convened by the Organization of American States (OAS). Representatives from CARICOM, the OAS, the United Nations, the United States, Canada and the Haitian government participated in discussions about Haiti’s future governance structure.

Soon after, it became clear that Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé would lead the transition alone beyond February 7 — a configuration reminiscent of the controversial Ariel Henry period. For many Haitians, this was not merely an administrative adjustment. It symbolized a troubling reality: Haiti’s political architecture appears increasingly shaped outside its own borders.

Haiti is no ordinary state. It was the first Black republic in the modern world, born in 1804 from the only successful slave revolution in history. Its independence shook the global order. Yet more than two centuries later, the country seems trapped in a cycle of external mediation and internal fragmentation that undermines its autonomy.

Diplomatic engagement between nations is normal. What is not normal is when a state repeatedly relies on external actors to design its transitional leadership. Sovereignty, as political philosopher Jean Bodin defined it, is the “absolute and perpetual power of a republic.” In Haiti’s case, that power increasingly appears conditional.

The problem is not foreign involvement per se. It is the combination of external influence and internal collapse.

Haiti’s transitional leadership has been marked by accusations of corruption, paralysis and catastrophic security failure. Over 10,000 people have reportedly died in recent years due to gang-related violence. Millions have been displaced. An estimated 80 to 90 percent of Port-au-Prince is now under gang control. The state’s authority has been hollowed out.

When domestic institutions fracture, outside powers step in. In international relations theory, this dynamic resembles what scholars describe as asymmetric dependency — when weaker states rely heavily on stronger ones for stability and legitimacy.

But recent developments suggest something deeper may be unfolding.

According to reporting by Le Nouvelliste, the Haitian government has pursued significant security and border-related contracts. A contract valued at over $40 million involving a firm linked to Erik Prince — known for private security operations and close ties to political circles in Washington — is reportedly expected to be renewed.

Even more striking is a proposed 10-year contract signed with Evergreen Trading System Limited, valued at approximately $542 million. The project is designed to strengthen border security, modernize customs administration and enhance revenue collection. While the contractor reportedly finances the bulk of the program, Haiti is expected to provide $13.6 million in mobilization costs. The Haitian Court of Auditors has already returned the draft contract for revisions.

In a country where customs revenue represents one of the state’s primary sources of income, outsourcing border and customs modernization for a decade is not a minor technical reform. It touches the core of sovereign authority — taxation, security and control of national territory.

Observers are therefore asking a sensitive but unavoidable question: Is the strong diplomatic backing enjoyed by Haiti’s current prime minister entirely separate from these multimillion-dollar arrangements?

To be clear, there is no public evidence of illegality in these contracts. Governments frequently hire private firms to strengthen institutions. Yet when a fragile state enters into large security agreements while simultaneously relying on diplomatic support from the same foreign power whose political orbit those firms inhabit, perceptions of alignment inevitably arise.

Perception matters in geopolitics — especially in fragile democracies.

Adding to this dynamic are reports that Prime Minister Fils-Aimé has engaged Washington-based lobbying firms to advance his political standing. Lobbying is common practice in U.S. politics and international diplomacy. But when domestic legitimacy is weak and external endorsement appears decisive, questions of accountability surface.

If a leader’s political survival depends more on foreign recognition than domestic consensus, governance risks becoming externally anchored rather than nationally accountable. In such a scenario, it is not unreasonable for Haitians to fear that the prime minister’s most important audience may not be his citizens — but foreign diplomats.

This is not the first time Haiti has found itself in such a position. The Organization of American States played a controversial role in Haiti’s 2010–2011 electoral crisis. Multiple international missions have intervened in Haiti’s security landscape over the past two decades. The pattern is familiar: domestic dysfunction creates space for international oversight.

But the stakes today are higher.

Haiti is not simply unstable; it is fragmented. Divisions within the executive branch, rivalry among political factions and the absence of a coherent national project have created a vacuum. And in geopolitics, vacuums rarely remain empty.

The United States has legitimate interests in regional stability, migration control and security. No serious observer denies that Haiti’s collapse would have consequences for the Caribbean and Florida. But there is a fine line between strategic engagement and structural dependency.

The uncomfortable reality is that Haiti’s sovereignty is eroding not solely because of foreign intervention, but because of domestic political failure. Corruption, short-term power struggles and the recycling of discredited elites have weakened the moral authority of the state.

External influence thrives where internal cohesion collapses.

The tragedy is historical. Haiti once shocked the world by defeating Napoleon’s army and declaring freedom for enslaved people everywhere. Today, it struggles to assert control over its own capital.

The United States now faces a choice. It can continue to support short-term stability anchored in personalities and security contracts. Or it can prioritize long-term institutional legitimacy, transparency and Haitian-led governance reform.

For Haiti, the path forward requires more than denunciations of foreign interference. It demands internal transformation: unified leadership, credible anti-corruption measures, professional security reform and diaspora engagement rooted in accountability.

Sovereignty in the 21st century is not isolation. It is the capacity to negotiate from strength rather than desperation.

Haiti’s current trajectory suggests a dangerous possibility: a state that retains its flag and anthem but gradually loses effective control over its political destiny.

The world once witnessed Haiti redefine freedom. Whether it can now redefine sovereignty remains an open question.