When a senior American official speaks about the Sahara issue, every word is weighed with the scale of politics and diplomacy. But what happens when those statements are contradictory? That is the question raised after the remarks made by Massad Boulos, advisor to former U.S. President Donald Trump for African affairs, which sparked a storm of interpretations—between Algeria and the Polisario on one side, and Morocco and its allies on the other.
Was it simply individual confusion from an advisor unfamiliar with the intricacies of the file? Or is there a hidden diplomatic game behind these statements? And why did he return to affirm Washington’s official position just hours after his controversial statement?
At a critical moment, when the Moroccan Sahara issue is experiencing renewed diplomatic momentum, Massad Boulos appeared on the “Al Arabiya” channel with statements that were considered controversial and opened the door to interpretations. The Algerian press and supporters of the Polisario Front even celebrated them, interpreting them as a supposed American backtrack on recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara.
Boulos, of Lebanese descent and holder of American citizenship, said that Trump’s 2020 proclamation recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara was not a “closed declaration,” but rather one conditioned on “the agreement of all parties.” He added that Algeria would accept a solution agreed upon by the Polisario. This was widely understood as an attempt to diminish the value of the U.S. recognition, which has always been seen as a strategic gain for Morocco in this dossier.
Algerians see the statement as a U.S. retreat.
They say no solution is possible without Algeria.
But Morocco has said for years: Algeria is the main party.
The conflict is with them; negotiations must include them. pic.twitter.com/rN4h3OJf6D
— Diplomatique.ma الدبلوماسية (@diplomatique_ma) April 19, 2025
Yet, just a few hours after these remarks, Boulos shared an official statement by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, clearly reaffirming that the United States renews its recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces and continues to support the Moroccan autonomy proposal as the only serious, credible, and lasting solution to the regional conflict.
This sequence reflects a state of confusion on Boulos’ part, who initially deleted his first statement, only to re-share the official one later with a positive comment, as if trying to correct the course or mitigate the impact of his earlier remarks.
But who really has the authority to speak on behalf of U.S. foreign policy?
Boulos, despite having been Trump’s advisor, does not currently hold any official position, which weakens the weight of his statements when compared to the consistent affirmations issued by the U.S. administration—under both Trump and Biden—which have remained steady in their support for Moroccan sovereignty.
Strong statement from @SecRubio unequivocally reaffirming U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. https://t.co/6JwvdZIj3n
— U.S. Senior Advisor for Africa (@US_SrAdvisorAF) April 18, 2025
So why did his statements stir such controversy?
Perhaps due to the international influence that the United States carries, where any word spoken by a figure connected to U.S. policymaking becomes the subject of analysis—especially on a sensitive issue like the Sahara.
The confusion also reveals a gap in strategic communication among some of the actors involved in the Sahara file, where there is often an over-interpretation of individuals’ words without considering the institution they represent or the context in which they speak.
Are we witnessing naïveté in how media handles unofficial statements? Or is this a deliberate attempt to exploit every gap in discourse to the benefit of Morocco’s territorial adversaries?
The speed with which Boulos corrected his statements—by aligning them with those of the U.S. State Department—suggests that the matter was likely a simple misjudgment or lack of full understanding of a complex and sensitive issue, rather than a new political stance.
The international context exposes the flawed interpretations
Although Boulos’ comments stirred brief confusion, they come within a global diplomatic context where most influential powers increasingly view Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the most serious and realistic path to resolve the conflict. From Spain and Germany to France and the United States—alongside dozens of countries that have opened consulates in Laayoune and Dakhla—it has become evident that international support for the Moroccan initiative is steadily growing.
Does this incident not reveal the urgent need to strengthen Morocco’s media and diplomatic readiness?
Now more than ever, it is crucial to seriously and swiftly address unofficial statements and to reinforce Morocco’s media and political front abroad to prevent any room for misinterpretation…
