US declares Sudan's warring faction leaders unfit to govern
Synopsis
In a sharp departure from diplomatic hedging, the US State Department declared both of Sudan's warring military leaders — of the SAF and RSF — outright ineligible to govern. The statement brands Sudan's war the world's worst humanitarian crisis and warns of rising costs for all those fuelling the conflict, while stopping short of naming sanctions targets.
Key Takeaways
The US State Department on Tuesday, 23 September declared both Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) leaders unfit and ineligible to govern Sudan .
Spokesman Tommy Pigott said both factions have 'redoubled combat operations and drone strikes which kill civilians' despite US appeals for a truce.
The department described Sudan's war as the world's worst humanitarian crisis .
President Donald Trump remains committed to ending the conflict, the statement said, pledging support for a civilian-led political transition.
Washington warned it would 'raise the cost of continued conflict on all belligerents,' but did not specify sanctions or other measures.
The department did not name countries, companies, or organisations it believes are sustaining the war.
The United States has formally declared that the leaders of Sudan's two warring military factions are unfit to govern the country, accusing both sides of rejecting a humanitarian truce and continuing attacks that have killed civilians. The State Department issued the unusually direct statement on Tuesday, marking one of Washington's sharpest public condemnations of both factions since the conflict began.
What Washington Said
State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said in a formal statement: 'Regrettably, neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces have made serious commitments to an immediate truce and instead have redoubled combat operations and drone strikes which kill civilians.'
The department went further, directly rejecting the legitimacy of either military faction. 'Neither the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Rapid Support Forces, nor their respective leaders, represent legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan — they rule through force of arms alone,' the statement read. 'The conduct of each leader of the warring factions renders them ineligible to govern the country.'
The Humanitarian Toll
The State Department described the war in Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. According to the statement, despite repeated US appeals for an immediate humanitarian pause, both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have expanded combat operations and escalated drone attacks against civilian areas.
Washington has called on both parties to accept a proposed humanitarian truce without preconditions, and has separately urged an inclusive political dialogue leading to a transition to civilian government. 'These are essential steps to achieving a durable peace in Sudan,' Pigott said.
Pressure and Consequences
The administration warned that it was prepared to increase pressure on both belligerents and the networks sustaining the conflict if fighting continued. 'In the meantime, we will seek to raise the cost of continued conflict on all belligerents and the networks which fuel the conflict,' the statement said.
However, the department did not specify whether it was considering new economic sanctions, diplomatic restrictions, or other concrete measures. It also did not name the countries, companies, or organisations it believes are fuelling the war.
US Position on Sudan's Political Future
President Donald Trump, the statement noted, remained committed to ending the conflict. The administration said it was willing to work with any government or organisation prepared to act as a serious partner for peace. 'We seek to restore peace and give power back to the Sudanese people,' the State Department said. 'The United States and President Trump are ready to support a plan for peace.'
Washington's backing for a civilian-led political process signals a clear departure from engagement with either military faction, though the path to such a transition remains undefined given the ground realities of an ongoing war.
Point of View
But rhetoric without named consequences has been Washington's pattern on Sudan for two years. The warning to 'raise the cost' for belligerents and their networks is deliberately vague: it does not commit to sanctions, asset freezes, or arms embargoes on the external suppliers keeping both sides in the fight. Until Washington names the networks and imposes real costs, this statement risks being another strongly worded dispatch that neither faction has any structural incentive to heed.
NationPress
23 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the US say about Sudan's warring factions?
The US State Department declared on 23 September that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces — nor their leaders — represent legitimate governance for Sudan, stating that both 'rule through force of arms alone.' The department said the conduct of each faction's leader renders them ineligible to govern the country.
Why is the Sudan conflict being called the world's worst humanitarian crisis?
The State Department used that designation to describe the scale of civilian suffering caused by the ongoing war between the SAF and RSF, which has involved drone strikes on civilian areas and a rejection of humanitarian truces. The conflict has displaced millions and caused widespread casualties, according to international assessments.
What action is the US threatening against Sudan's warring sides?
Washington warned it would seek to 'raise the cost of continued conflict on all belligerents and the networks which fuel the conflict,' but stopped short of specifying sanctions, diplomatic restrictions, or other concrete measures. It also did not name the external parties it believes are sustaining the war.
What political solution is the US backing in Sudan?
The US is calling for an inclusive political dialogue leading to a transition to civilian government, and has asked both the SAF and RSF to accept a humanitarian truce without preconditions. President Donald Trump has signalled readiness to support a peace plan that restores power to the Sudanese people.
Has either faction responded to the US statement?
According to the State Department, neither faction has made serious commitments to an immediate truce and both have instead expanded combat operations and drone strikes. The department did not disclose whether either side had formally rejected the proposed humanitarian truce's specific terms.
