Sudan’s Military Chief Rejects U.S. Ceasefire, Deepens Diplomatic Rift

Gen. Abdel‑Fattah Burhan, commander of Sudan’s military, rejected a U.S. led ceasefire proposal in comments released by the military in a video on November 24, 2025, according to the Associated Press. The announcement represents a sharp rebuke to a push by Washington and its partners to secure a negotiated pause in hostilities that have raged for months between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.

The refusal interrupts fragile momentum among regional and international mediators who have been trying to stitch together temporary halts to allow for humanitarian deliveries, civilian evacuations and medical access. Humanitarian agencies have warned repeatedly that access is shrinking as front lines shift and supply routes are cut, and the new impasse threatens to deepen the suffering of civilians caught in urban combat and besieged towns.

The conflict has already displaced hundreds of thousands inside Sudan and pushed many more across borders into neighboring countries, straining regional relief capacities and prompting appeals for safe corridors. The rejection of the proposal adds diplomatic strain to capitals balancing pressure for an immediate ceasefire with the realities of fragmented command structures on the ground and competing foreign interests in Khartoum and other strategic locations.

International mediators have sought a range of tools to end the violence, working through the African Union, the United Nations and ad hoc diplomatic groupings led by Western and regional powers. Those efforts have included back channel talks, shuttle diplomacy and proposals for temporary pauses to enable urgent relief work. The military’s public dismissal of the U.S. led text signals that any future plan will need to overcome deep distrust and perceived bias among the principal parties.

Legal and humanitarian experts say the situation sharpens questions about compliance with international humanitarian law and the obligation of all parties to protect civilians and permit unimpeded humanitarian assistance. Aid organizations face the practical consequence that convoy movements, hospital evacuations and the delivery of food and medical supplies will be harder to guarantee without clear and enforceable pauses in fighting.

Diplomats in Khartoum and regional capitals said the setback could prompt a recalibration of international tactics, with greater emphasis on engaging a wider set of Sudanese actors and amplifying regional mediation platforms. It may also increase international pressure through diplomatic isolation and targeted measures meant to push both sides back to the negotiating table, though such steps carry risks of hardening positions further.

For now, the refusal underscores the precariousness of external interventions in a conflict where local grievances, fractured loyalties and geopolitical competition intersect. The immediate priority for humanitarian agencies remains securing safe passage and temporary pauses to reach civilians in need, even as political actors across the globe reassess how to persuade Sudanese leaders to halt the fighting.