This op-ed was originally published by The Washington Times on December 3, 2025.

By U.S. Representative French Hill and USCIRF Commissioner Mohamed Elsanousi

Sudan’s devastating war slipped almost entirely off the global agenda in recent months—until U.S. President Donald J. Trump responded to an appeal from Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman by announcing he would prioritize ending the conflict. Since 2023, this war has killed as many as 150,000 and triggered the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. According to the UN Refugee Agency, the conflict has displaced nearly 12 million people while driving 21 million to hunger. It also reversed a brief but consequential moment of hope and progress toward religious freedom and other human rights for the Sudanese people. President Trump’s renewed interest in Sudan is therefore welcome and desperately needed; only his personal engagement, or from a prominent figure directly speaking for him, will bring about a real chance to halt this conflict.

While Sudan’s war is complex, stemming from internal historical grievances, ethnic tensions, economic drivers, and international interference, it is fundamentally a power struggle between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who commands the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). U.S. allies in the region have failed to mediate between them, often deeply disagreeing with one another over the respective roles of SAF and the RSF in any future political transition. Stalled diplomacy has allowed civilians in Darfur to starve while essentials aid convoys face attacks and the two sides trade blame.

While these envoys have been unable to persuade al-Burhan and Hemedti to end the war, a direct appeal from the U.S. administration—or even better, from President Trump himself—could break the deadlock. President Trump has already delivered diplomatic breakthroughs in complicated conflicts such as Israel and Hamas, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Azerbaijan and Armenia. Compared to these challenges, many consider Sudan’s war as low-hanging fruit; despite its horrific impact and the counterproductive interference of regional powers, it is fundamentally an internal struggle between al-Burhan and Hemedti. A phone call from President Trump may not address all of these complexities, but it would certainly prompt action from these two leaders whose respective forces will stand down at their order. 

Why, then, should President Trump wield his diplomatic clout on Sudan? The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) warned in a recent report of the threats facing Sudanese Christians and other vulnerable minorities. While religious animus is not a central cause of this conflict, these communities have suffered alongside all Sudan’s people. SAF and RSF fighters alike have destroyed churches and mosques, and they have detained and attacked minority members with impunity. Such incidents include a deadly attack on the Church of Christ in Al Jazirah state in December 2024, in which RSF gunmen vowed to "eliminate all Christians” while killing 14 worshipers. This violence stands in stark contrast to the optimistic reform that followed the Omar al-Bashir’s fall in 2019 and prompted significant improvements in religious freedom such as the repeal of apostasy laws and support for broader human rights. 

The first Trump administration lent its enthusiastic support to those reforms by removing Sudan’s designation as a “country of particular concern.”

Sudan is essential to our national security: it is strategically significant country that has often served as a bridge between Africa and the Middle East and is the world's fifth-largest producer of gold and other minerals. But it is also a target for Russian and Chinese influence: the former, for example, has partnered with the RSF to secure access to gold mines. If Washington turns away from Khartoum, then Moscow and Beijing—both governments known for disregarding religious freedom and human rights—will exploit that vacuum.

Re-engagement in Sudan would show that the United States is serious about confronting such great power competition and ending a forgotten war that has devastated millions. It would strengthen U.S. capacity for influence and constructive involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa, including advancing religious freedom in a particularly dangerous region for religious minorities. In fact, any ceasefire deal must include concrete guarantees for Sudan’s religious and ethnic minorities, reflecting our longstanding commitment to international religious freedom and elevating that moral imperative as a priority. 

President Trump’s promise of direct engagement could represent the first step in turning the tide in Sudan. It is time to act swiftly: as we have seen in just the past month, any further delay could allow the country to descend further into an abyss of atrocities and devastation, threatening millions of Sudanese lives.