Skepticism greets Trump's efforts for peace in Sudan: 'They don't have a reason to cease'

President Donald Trumps recent commitment to advocating for a ceasefire in Sudan has drawn cautious praise from officials and analysts, who view it as a spotlight on a conflict that has triggered the worlds most severe humanitarian emergency. However, experts doubt that this initiative will produce meaningful results, citing the administrations limited diplomatic engagement, Trumps conflicting business interests with countries backing the war, and his apparent reluctance to apply significant pressure.

For the past year, Sudan has been called the forgotten war, and it remains so, said Areig Elhag, Arabic Content Editor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Trumps attention has injected urgency, and that is promising, yet Sudan has historically not been a U.S. priority.

During his first term, Trump removed Sudan from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism following a grassroots uprising that ousted the three-decade rule of Omar al-Bashir. Yet, Sudans transition to civilian-led governance collapsed in April 2023, igniting a war between the national military, Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). After two years of fighting, Sudan faces widespread violence, famine, and disease. The conflict has claimed over 150,000 lives, displaced roughly 14 million people, and threatens hunger for nearly half of the 50 million population.

The U.S. has accused RSF leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeditti, of genocide, while SAF chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan faces allegations of severe civilian abuses. Famine conditions were reported in parts of Sudan starting in 2024.

On November 19, Trump announced, after discussions with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, that he would leverage his influence to push for a ceasefire between SAF and RSF forces. The request from Saudi Arabia indicated concern that the SAF, which Riyadh supports, was struggling against the RSF, allegedly backed by the United Arab Emirates. While Abu Dhabi denies supplying weapons to the RSF, U.N. reports and U.S. intelligence have suggested credible involvement.

Trump as Mediator Between Gulf Powers

Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE see Sudan as a strategic corridor for influence along the Red Sea and into Africa. Analysts argue that these external players exacerbate the conflict. Current discussions between Washington, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi often focus more on regional power competition than Sudan itself, explained Kholood Adair, director of Confluence Advisory. This competition increasingly positions Trump or the U.S. as a mediator.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for halting arms deliveries to the RSF but did not directly challenge the UAE. The U.S. has engaged the Quad groupEgypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAEto align external actors and theoretically pressure both warring factions. In September, the Quad issued a communique advocating a three-month humanitarian truce and affirming that Sudans future belongs to its people, yet provided no detailed enforcement plan, according to Cameron Hudson, former Africa Director at the National Security Council.

Trump is perceived as unlikely to exert firm pressure on Saudi Arabia or the UAE, both of which are major investors in Trump family ventures. Analysts argue that without meaningful international pressure, neither Burhan nor Dagalo has motivation to negotiate.

Earlier ceasefire proposals were rejected by Burhan as detrimental to the SAF while favoring the RSF, and no agreement has yet been reached, according to Massad Bolous, Trumps senior advisor for African Affairs. Current fighting conditions, worsened by Sudans dry season, have allowed the RSF to expand territorial control, including the strategic city of El Fasher. Reports describe widespread killings and sexual violence during its capture. The RSF is now reportedly moving toward Khartoum and the Red Sea coast.

Trump has not appointed a federally mandated special envoy for Sudan. Cuts to the State Department and USAID, along with eliminated offices focused on democracy, human rights, and refugee affairs, have depleted institutional knowledge. Reliance on Bolous alone illustrates the administrations limited capacity to address the crisis strategically.

Adair criticized the Quad as an inadequate vehicle for achieving civilian governance or a ceasefire, noting that the involved countries maintain financial and military stakes in Sudan. Elhag praised Trumps recent designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, suggesting it could pressure SAF-supporting networks, but emphasized that substantial enforcement of the arms embargo and sanctions against Dagalos allies is necessary. She warned that rebuilding Sudan will require long-term reconstruction of both infrastructure and trust among its people.

Analysis of Trump's Role in Sudan's Ceasefire Efforts

President Donald Trump's recent commitment to push for a ceasefire in Sudan has sparked cautious optimism, highlighting a rare moment of attention on a conflict that has long been overlooked on the global stage. Despite the urgent need for intervention, experts remain skeptical about the potential for meaningful change. The reasons for this skepticism lie in the administration's limited diplomatic engagement and Trump's complex relationships with the countries involved in the conflict.

While the U.S. has accused key figures in the Sudanese conflict, such as General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, of grave human rights violations, Trump's actions seem more reactive than proactive. His willingness to mediate between regional powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who both have strategic interests in Sudan, raises questions about whether these efforts are truly focused on peace or primarily about regional power competition.

Furthermore, Trump’s ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are financial backers of his business ventures, complicate any potential for exerting meaningful pressure on these nations. Without clear, enforceable actions such as a strict arms embargo or sanctions, it is difficult to see how Trump’s efforts can break the deadlock between the warring factions. The absence of a dedicated special envoy for Sudan and cuts to critical departments like USAID only exacerbate the situation, leaving the U.S. ill-equipped to engage effectively.

Ultimately, while the attention Trump has brought to Sudan is commendable, the path to a ceasefire and a lasting peace appears unlikely unless substantial international pressure is applied. The political and economic interests of external powers continue to cloud the potential for a resolution, making it clear that Sudan’s future may depend on more than just diplomatic efforts—it may require a complete shift in how global actors approach the crisis.

Sources:

• Trump’s Sudan peace push met with skepticism: ‘They don’t see a reason to stop’