Massad Boulos, an envoy of President Donald Trump, met Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Egypt over the weekend. More than 14 million Sudanese remain displaced by a war now in its fourth year, and the talks opened a rare diplomatic channel in a conflict that has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
The meeting came less than two weeks after Washington withheld a visa for al-Burhan before a scheduled United Nations appearance. Sudanese and other sources said the decision was linked to a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal that Khartoum has resisted.
The Human Toll
The numbers are staggering. Sudan’s army has fought the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces since April 2023, when the two sides fell out over issues including how to integrate their forces in a planned transition to civilian rule. The power-sharing dispute has displaced more than 14 million people and unleashed waves of ethnically driven killings.
Families have lost their homes. Communities face attacks because of who they are, while civilians endure a fight they never chose. The planned transition to civilian rule, the very issue that brought the generals into conflict, lies buried beneath the wreckage.
Diplomacy and Its Limits
Boulos, the U.S. Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs, described the meeting on X on Monday. “We also reaffirm the United States’ continued efforts, alongside our Egyptian partners and our other regional and international partners and allies, to advance a political solution to the crisis,” he said.
He went further. “The United States stands ready to support all efforts leading to a comprehensive dialogue among the Sudanese political forces, leading to a preliminary road map of the future of the Sudan,” Boulos said.
His words stress partnership. Egypt, regional states and international allies all appear in Boulos’s statement, reflecting that no single capital can end this war alone. He also points to Sudanese political forces, not only the two armed camps, as participants in any eventual settlement.
Accountability on Both Sides
The diplomacy proceeds against a stark assessment from Washington. Last month, the U.S. State Department said neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary, nor either of their respective leaders, “represent legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan.”
Washington has accused the RSF of committing genocide and the army of carrying out war crimes. Both sides have previously denied abuses.
That leaves negotiators facing an awkward reality. The United States is meeting with the head of an army it accuses of war crimes while pressing a ceasefire plan that the army has resisted. The visa denial shows Washington has tried to pair pressure with engagement, though the source material doesn’t say whether the meeting changed Khartoum’s position on the proposal.
Why This Matters:
Sudan’s war isn’t an abstraction. More than 14 million displaced people means entire towns emptied, while ethnically driven killings mean violence tracks identity, not just geography. The U.S. has publicly accused one side of genocide and the other of war crimes, raising hard questions about how far diplomacy can go without accountability for the abuses it names. A ceasefire Khartoum has resisted, political dialogue that excludes no civilian force, and a regional coalition working with Washington all point toward collective, multilateral effort as the only realistic path. For civilians, the test isn’t whether officials meet. It’s whether talks bring protection and whether those accused of atrocities face consequences.