Armenian legal expert raises transparency concerns over proposed U.S.-backed TRIPP project

An Armenian constitutional law specialist has publicly questioned the transparency and legal foundations of negotiations between Armenia’s government and U.S. partners over a proposed regional infrastructure project known as the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), warning that decisions of strategic importance appear to be taking shape behind closed doors.

Gohar Meloyan, co-founder of the International Center on Development of Parliamentarism, issued a detailed critique in response to comments by Public TV host Petros Ghazaryan, focusing on what she described as a lack of publicly available information about the project’s structure and governance.

Armenia’s government has acknowledged holding active talks on the general terms of the TRIPP Route, a connectivity initiative that would reportedly involve the establishment of a joint Armenian–American entity, tentatively referred to as TRIPP Company. The entity would reportedly be granted rights to develop and operate railways, roads, oil and gas pipelines, and fiber-optic infrastructure, potentially including routes through Armenia’s southern Syunik region.

In a public statement, Meloyan said critical legal, corporate and fiscal questions remain unanswered, including whether a new legal entity would be created or whether cooperation would proceed through a joint venture agreement without establishing a separate company.

She also questioned where such an entity would be registered – Armenia, a U.S. state such as Delaware, or a third country –  and what legal form it would take, as well as whether ownership would be limited to Armenian and U.S. participants or include third parties.

Other issues raised include how shares or stakes would be allocated, whether shareholders would be free to sell their interests without mutual consent, how management would be appointed or dismissed, and whether profits would be taxed in Armenia like those of other companies operating in the country.

Meloyan expressed particular skepticism about the identity of the U.S. partner, noting that the U.S. government rarely establishes or directly participates in joint ventures. She said it was unclear whether Washington would be involved through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) or via private investment firms such as BlackRock or Vanguard.

She also questioned what legal instruments would grant infrastructure development and operating rights, for how long those rights would apply, and whether a separate concession agreement would be signed with the Armenian government. According to Meloyan, it is unclear whether Armenia would receive concession fees or rental payments, or whether access to its territory would be provided free of charge in exchange for infrastructure development.

“The launch or failure of the TRIPP project and the terms under which it proceeds will have a profound impact on Armenia’s future,” Meloyan said. “Such matters should not be decided by a narrow circle of officials behind closed doors, but should be subject to broad public debate with the participation of the best experts in the field.”

She added that her “greatest concern” lies in insufficient professionalism and populist overconfidence among Armenian representatives involved in the process.