Miami Independent.com

Guest post by Shane Trejo

In Haiti’s fiercely ideological political landscape, former Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe stood out as something rare: a U.S.-educated, pro-business Haitian leader who openly positioned himself on the right side of the country’s political spectrum.

Lamothe did not emerge from Haiti’s traditional political machine. He built his fortune abroad in the telecommunications sector, helping expand mobile networks across emerging markets before returning to serve his country. Educated in the United States and closely connected to American business circles, he entered Haitian politics with a clear vision: Haiti needed investment, entrepreneurship and strong ties with the United States to escape decades of economic stagnation.

For a brief moment, that vision appeared to be working.

During Lamothe’s tenure in government, foreign direct investment surged from roughly $8 million to more than $347 million in just two and a half years. Haiti’s economy — stagnant for years — grew to nearly 4.5% in 2013 and 2014, signaling early signs of stabilization after the devastating 2010 earthquake.

International investors returned. Tourism projects expanded. Infrastructure development accelerated.

For the first time in years, Haiti appeared to be moving toward a model based on private investment and economic modernization rather than permanent dependence on foreign aid.

But Lamothe’s reform agenda also collided with Haiti’s entrenched political order. Lamothe was a “law and order” Prime Minister who fought the gangs harshly

For decades, the country’s politics has been heavily influenced by the left-leaning Lavalas movement founded by former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That political current emphasized populist mobilization, redistribution and skepticism toward foreign investment.

Lamothe’s policies represented the opposite approach.

He openly promoted private-sector growth, international partnerships and market-driven economic reform, positioning himself as a right-of-center counterweight to Haiti’s radical left factions.

That ideological divide would eventually reach Washington.

⸻

The Sanctions Controversy

In recent years, the United States and Canada imposed sanctions on several Haitian political figures, including Lamothe, revoking his U.S. visa and accusing him of corruption — allegations he has strongly denied.

Lamothe has described the accusations as a “political favor” aimed at protecting the struggling left-wing government of Ariel Henry — a longtime ally of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the Lavalas political machine.

Supporters of Lamothe point to a fact often overlooked in the debate: five separate audits of his financial management while in government reportedly found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Yet the sanctions remained until today.

Lamoth is not officially sanctioned by Office of Foreign Assets Control but Blinken’s action has lifted Lamoth’s visa and thus his ability to visit the United States.

At the same time, the U.S. State Department under Antony Blinken and Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols strongly backed the government of Ariel Henry following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.

Under Henry’s leadership, Haiti’s security situation deteriorated dramatically. Armed gangs expanded their control across large parts of Port-au-Prince while state institutions weakened further.

For Lamothe’s supporters, the contrast is striking.

A pro-American Haitian entrepreneur educated in the United States lost his visa, while the government Washington supported struggled to prevent Haiti from sliding deeper into chaos.

A Sanctions Policy That Raised Political Questions

The sanctions campaign of the BIDEN ERA state department also raised questions among Haitian political observers.

While the United States imposed visa bans on several political figures, few prominent individuals directly associated with the Lavalas political movement of Leftist Priest Jean Bertrand Aristide appear to have been targeted by those measures.

Critics say the policy had the practical effect of weakening figures associated with the right-leaning reform-oriented political camp of former Prime Minister

Lamothe, while leaving other political factions largely untouched who are widely believed to have initiated the Gang Rule in Haiti in the first place.

Whether intentional or not, they argue, the sanctions risked reshaping Haiti’s internal political balance during one of the most fragile moments in the country’s history.

And in fragile states like Haiti, U.S. policy decisions often carry enormous political consequences.

When Washington sanctions some actors while supporting others, those decisions inevitably influence the country’s internal power dynamics.

⸻

Why the Trump Administration Should Reconsider

Former Haitian Prime Minister Targeted for Pro-U.S. Views Under Biden Regime

For Lamothe’s supporters, the issue is not simply about one visa.

It is about the message U.S. policy sends to reform-minded leaders across the developing world.

Should pro-business leaders who advocate economic modernization and strong ties with the United States be treated as political liabilities — or as potential partners?

Some analysts believe the Trump Administration should review the sanctions imposed on Lamothe and other Haitian political figures, which the Biden Administration appears to have used solely to restrict the travel of right-of-center political figures — rather than because any of those sanctioned actually did anything wrong.

Restoring Lamothe’s visa, they argue, would signal that the United States supports pro-American, pro-investment leadership in the Caribbean rather than sidelining it.

Laurent Lamothe’s situation also has a humanitarian dimension: his only son, just one year old, recently died suddenly, and his daughters—now in college in Miami—are unable to be visited by him. It is time to restore the visa of a man who has done nothing wrong during his stewardship of the nation of Haiti.

For Haiti, a country still searching for stability, that signal could matter.

And for Washington, it raises a fundamental question about foreign policy:

Should the Trump Administration punish reformers who challenge the status quo — or stand with them?