
A Roadmap for Sudan in Trump’s First 100 Days
Kate Hixon is the Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA and Kehinde Togun is the Managing Director for Public Engagement at Humanity United and a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy
Following his second inauguration, President Donald Trump has another chance to enact his foreign policy vision and we urge him to include addressing one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world. With more than 11.4 million Sudanese displaced and over 18,000 killed, the conflict in Sudan presents grave challenges to the new administration. Sudan’s continued collapse is not only an immediate human rights threat to civilians but also risks further destabilizing an already fragile region—a major risk to the United States and its own security interests. The Sudan conflict will also continue to be intertwined with the administration’s Middle East policy; many of those supplying weapons fueling ongoing atrocities were key allies in ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas. Despite these complications, President Trump has a legacy-defining opportunity by immediately prioritizing Sudan before even more civilians are killed.
Background
Conflict in Sudan broke out on April 15, 2023, months after two divisions of the Sudanese state militia ended their power sharing agreement, following the removal of their civilian partners from the transitional government in October 2022. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan wanted the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”) integrated into the traditional army faster than the RSF was prepared to submit control. For the first time in Sudan’s history violent conflict seeped into the capital and quickly spread to the peripheries as well. Soon most of Sudan’s hospitals were out of commission and nearly two million people had fled the country, with millions more displaced internally.
President Biden initially issued two statements around the closure of the U.S. Embassy and evacuation of Americans. However, it was nearly a year and a half before he addressed the Sudanese people directly. Despite pressure from Congress, it took nearly a year for the Biden administration to appoint a Special Envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, and it did not go unnoticed that the envoy reported to Assistant Secretary for Africa, Molly Phee, instead of the Secretary of State. Intentionally or unintentionally, the administration’s message was that Sudan wasn’t a senior-level priority. Yet every few weeks, new reports of atrocities emerged, with the UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide warning that the “the situation today bears all the marks of risk of genocide, with strong allegations that this crime has already been committed.” In its final days, the Biden administration finally made a genocide determination. The administration also sanctioned leaders of both RSF and the SAF.
Despite co-leading several failed attempts at ceasefires with Saudi Arabia and ultimately standing up a larger Alliance for Lifesaving Peace (ALPS) working group; President Biden leaves office having made no material difference for the lives of the Sudanese people. Meanwhile, up to 24 million people are at risk of acute hunger with famine declared in some areas, and weapons continue to pour into Sudan into the hands of belligerents on both sides who continue to commit war crimes and harm civilians. The number of Sudanese refugees is growing in Chad, Egypt, South Sudan and Ethiopia where many face further human rights violations from their host state. South Sudan’s own moribund economy has been directly impacted by the halt of the flow of oil – causing further instability to an already precarious situation. Today, there is a greater risk of the conflict spreading and further destabilizing the Horn of Africa and harming even more civilians.
What Trump Can Do

Despite all the challenges the international community faces, there are several steps the new Trump administration can take within the first 100 days to stop civilian suffering in Sudan. Prioritizing these actions now would meaningfully impact the conflict before it reaches the grim two-year milestone.
First and most urgently, President Trump must appoint his own Presidential Envoy for Sudan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has previously made a bipartisan demand for this and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act codifies a Special Envoy for Sudan. Former Special Envoy Perriello—an energetic advocate—was never formally nominated nor was he seen as a senior Envoy with the ear of key Biden administration officials. As a result, he was hampered by a lack of influence with the external actors with whom he needed to negotiate. Outside of the U.S., counterparts did not view his appointment as a signal that Sudan was a top priority for President Biden. President Trump therefore must appoint a senior official who will be understood to truly be the administration’s emissary. Furthermore, formally nominating someone—and doing so early—would signal long term interest in addressing the crisis in Sudan, as the appointment will not be restricted by Senate rules on non-confirmed envoys.
Secondly, the Trump administration must immediately and forcefully convey that there will be consequences to governments that choose to continue to send weapons in clear violation of the arms embargo on Darfur. They must also message that beyond violating the Darfur arms embargo, international humanitarian law (IHL) precludes sending weapons to other parts of Sudan, as all states are prohibited from transferring or permitting private actors to transfer weapons to a party of an armed conflict – whether a state or non-state armed group – where there is a clear risk that this would contribute to the commission of international humanitarian law violations. President Trump should have these conversations directly with leaders of countries who are either directly or through shell companies arming the belligerents. The Trump administration will have both open-source information such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports on these weapons flows as well as classified intelligence so that the leaders cannot deny responsibility. It’s imperative that this information be shared to avoid the lack of accountability that existed in the Biden administration. Furthermore, President Trump’s reported close personal relationship with authorities in the UAE could be seen as an advantage if they’re more amenable to responding to a request from him than the previous administration.
In parallel, the administration must immediately begin laying the groundwork for an expansion of the U.N. Darfur arms embargo to cover the entirety of Sudan. The Security Council and its political composition make this a daunting task, and there are several key steps the Biden administration failed to take that would have laid the groundwork for success. However, there is a useful playbook to follow from the previous Trump administration when UN Ambassador Nikki Haley successfully led an effort to adopt an arms embargo on South Sudan. Haley herself made a call to the President of Sierra Leone and coordinated with like-minded UNSC partners to lobby Security Council governments and secure support. The senior level lobbying to multiple partners sent a strong signal that this was a U.S. priority. This level of diplomatic engagement was lacking under the Biden administration and President Trump would do well to instruct Cabinet officials to begin to signal that securing an expanded arms embargo is a top priority and work closely with Security Council partners to achieve it.
It will also be important for the Trump administration to reset relationships with the African Union and African states on the Sudan portfolio. When the conflict broke out the U.S. instinctively turned to its Gulf partner, Saudi Arabia, to coordinate on addressing the conflict and initial talks were held in Jeddah. The Biden administration rationale was the close links several of the Gulf states had with Burhan and Hemedti; yet it was a mistake to do so as it resulted in sidelining the African Union. While the African Union has its flaws that have hindered its own response to the Sudan crisis, it is a vital partner for addressing the conflict—the AU also has mechanisms that if brought to bear could hold the belligerents accountable. For example if the African Union decided it was in the best interest of civilians in Sudan to expand the arms embargo, it is significantly less likely that China or Russia would veto the expansion. Furthermore, with more African countries directly impacted by this conflict, the AU has an incentive to see the conflict cease to harm civilians or risk further destabilizing the region.
Finally, President Trump must prioritize responding to the humanitarian crisis. International aid agencies have been hindered in their response by bureaucratic obstacles from the Humanitarian Aid Commission, as well as security risks that make aid delivery difficult. Meanwhile Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms—created and led by Sudanese themselves to respond to their own crisis—continue to be the first line of response for the majority of civilians in need of assistance. While previous USAID Administrator Samantha Power took some steps to help further support these Emergency Response Rooms, bureaucratic hurdles continue to prevent these groups from being funded sufficiently. President Trump should order USAID to present a plan that will allow the U.S. to have a more flexible approach to funding these local groups. The administration must also lobby Congress to ensure that there is sufficient humanitarian funding for Sudan, as the response remains woefully underfunded. Taking these concrete steps will greatly reduce the extent of famine in Sudan – unfortunately, it is already likely too late to prevent it all together.
Conclusion:
While the new administration has multiple priorities, it is essential that addressing the conflict in Sudan be at the top of the list. Civilians in Sudan have endured suffering for nearly two years due to international indifference. Without more robust action, and a proactive approach from top to bottom, not only will civilians in Sudan continue to suffer but the risk for regional instability increases. President Trump must take advantage of his relationships with many of the proxies involved in the conflict to stop the weapons flow into Sudan and protect civilians.
