<p>Actors involved in transboundary water disputes utilize hydrodiscourses to either maintain or challenge existing power dynamics. This article examines the actors, dominant hydrodiscourses, and discursive acts regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, as portrayed by Ahram Online and the Ethiopian Herald, state-run newspapers in Egypt and Ethiopia, respectively. Guided by a discursive hydropolitics conceptual framework, the study employs Critical Discourse Analysis, specifically the Discourse Historical Approach. Findings reveal that the two newspapers are trapped in hegemonic and counter-hegemonic hydrodiscourses, where Ahram Online promotes ‘historic rights use’ as a hegemonic hydrodiscourse, while the Ethiopian Herald advocates ‘equitable and reasonable use’ as a counter-hegemonic hydrodiscourse. It is also found that the two newspapers employ different discursive acts, such as securitization and issue linkage, albeit in a divergent and polarized manner, to legitimize their dominant discourses. Furthermore, the newspapers portray actors within an ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. This article argues that the polarization and divergence of media outlets in promoting dominant hydrodiscourses and discursive acts, as well as the dichotomous ‘us’ and ‘them’ labels for actors, contribute to the failure to endorse a binding regulatory policy framework regarding the project, leading to conflicting terms rather than cooperation between the two riparian countries.</p>