Trump Cut Aid to Sudan. Here’s Why That Could Hasten Peace.

The world witnessed a dramatic moment in Sudan’s civil war last week when the Sudanese army recaptured the presidential palace in the capital of Khartoum from the rebel Rapid Support Forces, known as the RSF. It is unclear if the Sudanese Armed Forces, known as the SAF, have enough momentum to defeat the RSF or if this will end divided rule, but the development brought needed attention to this largely overlooked war.

Over the last two years, the war between the two corrupt and vicious armies has killed more than 150,000 people and plunged the country into what the International Rescue Committee has called the biggest humanitarian crisis ever recorded, with some 12 million people expelled from their homes and tens of millions facing extreme hunger. Sadly, the war is only the latest tragic development for a country that has been riven by strife since its independence in 1956.

But this is a key moment to reassess and overhaul the U.S. role in the conflict, since our policies there have failed to secure a good outcome for the people of Sudan. Over the last 20 years, the U.S. has sent $5 billion in humanitarian assistance. But rather than promoting stability or development, we’ve witnessed violence and misgovernance.

The United States, the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Sudan, recently decided to cut 90% of foreign aid contracts worldwide as part of President Donald Trump’s decision to make broad reductions in international assistance. Believe it or not, that just might be a good thing for Sudan.

We think the administration’s decision to slash humanitarian funding could actually bring positive changes to the developing world, including in war-torn Sudan. After all, to be effective, humanitarian aid must be managed by honest leaders in the receiving country.

If aid programs and U.S. foreign policy are realigned effectively, corrupt regimes will no longer be kept afloat by humanitarian assistance that never reaches the people most in need. Under the president’s “America First” policy, foreign aid should only continue if it makes America safer, stronger and more prosperous – which means delivering measurable results. At the same time, the U.S. should impose stronger sanctions and crack down on illicit funding streams to the warring factions.

Both the SAF and the rebel RSF have manipulated aid shipments, using them as a weapon of war by starving civilians in enemy-held territory, according to the United Nations. In that way, humanitarian aid gave both warring factions leverage over the civilian population.

Additionally, President Joe Biden failed to officially declare the 2021 military takeover as a coup, paving the way for the civil war in 2023, according to a 2023 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (In the event of a coup, U.S. law requires foreign aid to be restricted to not support military-ruled governments.) Biden also hesitated to impose sanctions on the corrupt generals who took power, acting only days before leaving office in January.

Unless the SAF or RSF are weakened and cut off from foreign sources of money and weapons, ending the war is unlikely. That’s why the U.S. must cut off aid and impose sanctions to disrupt the illicit financial networks that are backing the RSF and SAF. The United Arab Emirates has provided money and weapons to the RSF in exchange for Sudanese gold, while the SAF has increased ties with Iran, receiving military support in exchange for greater access to Sudan’s resources.

Concerns about the humanitarian consequences of cutting off foreign aid programs are legitimate. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memo on Jan. 28 to exempt “life-saving humanitarian assistance.” In spite of that promise, there is evidence that life-saving assistance is still being blocked in too many places, and the administration must redouble its efforts to make sure that the exemption is being applied.

Still, the Trump administration’s change of course was sorely needed. While some political leaders on both sides of the aisle have long questioned the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid in promoting economic development, Trump is the first U.S. leader to courageously question the entrenched systems of foreign aid and development that date back to the huge U.S.-funded projects to rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II.

Now that the new administration in Washington has said it will stop granting foreign aid that delivers minimal results and rewards unstable governments, conflicts including Sudan’s civil war won’t benefit from U.S. taxpayer money. With the Sudanese army regaining control of swaths of the country’s capital last Friday, the time is ripe for this realignment.