Sudan, battered by over two years of relentless conflict, has found itself thrust into the international spotlight after a rare intervention from U.S. President Donald Trump. In a move that has drawn both hope and skepticism, Trump announced in mid-November 2025 that he would push for a ceasefire in Sudan, following a White House meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. For many Sudanese, who have watched peace initiatives come and go with little effect, the question looms: can this latest effort break the deadlock, or is it yet another diplomatic false dawn?
Since April 2023, Sudan has been torn apart by a brutal war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by interim president General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. The toll has been staggering. According to reporting from Nexstar Media and the BBC, more than 150,000 people have died, 14 million have been driven from their homes, and nearly half of Sudan’s 50 million citizens are expected to face hunger in 2025. The United States has determined that Hemedti and the RSF have committed genocide, while Burhan is accused of grievous violence against civilians. Famine was officially declared in some areas beginning in 2024, and the humanitarian crisis shows no sign of abating.
The war reached a new level of horror in late October 2025 when RSF fighters, after a 500-day starvation siege, captured the city of El Fasher—the army’s last stronghold in Darfur. The RSF’s rampage through the city left at least 5,000 dead in an ethnically targeted massacre, with mobile phone footage circulating online depicting chilling acts of violence and humiliation. The BBC reports that survivors recounted harrowing stories of executions and sexual violence, with the ground soaked in blood and the city left in ruins. The RSF’s subsequent eastward redeployment, with ambitions to seize Khartoum and the Red Sea coastline, has only heightened fears of further atrocities and a wider humanitarian disaster.
President Trump’s announcement that he would “start working on Sudan” came after Saudi Arabia’s crown prince appealed directly for U.S. intervention. “Tremendous atrocities are taking place in Sudan. It has become the most violent place on Earth,” Trump declared on social media, pledging to work with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to end the violence. Yet, as the BBC points out, Trump himself admitted that Sudan was not even “on his charts to be involved in,” highlighting the suddenness of the administration’s pivot.
Despite this high-level attention, experts remain wary of any real breakthrough. Areig Elhag, Arabic Content Editor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Nexstar Media, “I think [Trump’s] attention has given the sudden and strong push, and I’m very optimistic about that, but at the same time, we shouldn’t forget that Sudan, unfortunately, has never been a priority for U.S. administrations.”
Much of the skepticism centers on the complex web of regional interests that underpin the conflict. Saudi Arabia backs the SAF, while the UAE is widely reported to arm the RSF—though Abu Dhabi denies this, despite credible allegations from United Nations investigators and U.S. intelligence. Egypt and Turkey have also stepped up support for the Sudanese army. These rivalries are not just about Sudan; they reflect broader contests for influence in the Red Sea basin and across the Arab world, from Yemen to Syria.
“A lot of the conversations that are happening right now between Washington and Riyadh and Washington and Abu Dhabi aren’t actually about Sudan, but are about these middle powers that have risen in terms of their ability to project force, to project influence, to project power, and their competition with each other,” said Kholood Adair, director of Confluence Advisory, to Nexstar Media. “Those interests are becoming more and more at odds, in particular on the Red Sea Basin, and therefore the Horn of Africa, and they’re relying more and more on President Trump or the Americans in general to act as a referee between them.”
In an attempt to coordinate international efforts, the U.S. and its allies established the so-called “Quad”—a grouping of the U.S., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. In September 2025, the Quad called for a three-month humanitarian truce, cessation of external military support, and negotiations toward a civilian-led government. Yet, as Cameron Hudson, a former Africa Director at the National Security Council, told Nexstar Media, the Quad’s communique lacked teeth: “There are no consequences… We’ve called on you to stop, but if you don’t stop, there’s no consequence to not stopping… if we were really trying to put pressure on them, then we would be imposing an arms embargo.”
Indeed, the Trump administration has so far avoided publicly reprimanding the UAE or imposing sanctions, even as evidence mounts of Emirati support for the RSF. The administration’s reluctance is complicated by deep business ties: the Saudi Public Investment Fund is a major investor in Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, and a $1 billion Trump hotel is planned for Jeddah. The UAE is described as a “hub” for the Trump family’s international ventures. With such entanglements, analysts doubt Trump will risk alienating either Riyadh or Abu Dhabi by exerting meaningful pressure.
On the ground, neither side in Sudan’s war appears ready to compromise. After the fall of El Fasher, Hemedti offered a ceasefire—seen by many as an attempt to polish his image after the massacre. Burhan, stung by defeat, dismissed the U.S.-backed truce as “the worst document yet,” arguing it would weaken the Armed Forces and preserve the RSF. According to the BBC, Burhan and the Islamists within his camp are “in fighting mood now, describing the RSF as a terrorist rabble that must be defeated completely.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. approach has been criticized as shallow. Trump has yet to appoint a special envoy for Sudan, and the administration’s reduction of State Department staff and elimination of key offices has left it short-handed. Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior advisor for African Affairs, is leading efforts, but analysts see this as insufficient. “You either designate someone high-level to be in charge of that policy, you put together a team, you create an office, you do something bureaucratically, to say, ‘Okay, we’re dedicating human resources to this, and we’re developing a strategy.’ Neither of those things have happened,” Hudson said.
Even if a ceasefire is achieved, the challenges ahead are daunting. Humanitarian aid budgets are stretched thin, with $3 billion urgently needed. Sudan’s civilian population, who overthrew dictator Omar al-Bashir just seven years ago, remain bitterly divided and distrustful of the generals. Many fear that if Arab countries steer the peace process, Sudan risks becoming an Arab dependency, as noted by Alex de Waal of the World Peace Foundation.
As November 2025 draws to a close, Sudan’s war rages on, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis deepening. Whether Trump’s intervention marks a turning point or simply another chapter in a saga of failed diplomacy remains uncertain. For now, Sudan’s people are left waiting—hoping that this time, the world will not look away.