Burhan Adviser Says U.S. 90-Day Sudan Truce Plan Risks 'Libya-Style' Partition, Seeks Monitored RSF Pullout From Cities
Sudan's army-led government has not accepted a U.S. truce proposal pushed by envoy Massad Boulos. One adviser calls this 'technical comments,' not a rejection. Gen. al-Burhan has publicly refused U.S. 'conditions,' and fighting goes on around El Obeid in Kordofan.
A Visa Denied, a Plan Not Signed, and the Word "Rejected"
Sudan's army chief says he doesn't want an American visa. The United States had been holding one back from him anyway. That standoff over a single travel document sits on top of a much bigger argument about how to stop a war that has killed well over a hundred thousand people and driven millions to the edge of starvation[1][3][21].
Here's the collision at the center of it. Sudan's government has not accepted a U.S. ceasefire proposal. But one of its own advisers says Sudan never actually rejected it, either[1][6]. Both of those things, oddly, are true at the same time — and the gap between "didn't accept" and "rejected" is exactly where this story lives.
The Plan Washington Wants, and the Pullout Sudan Is Demanding Instead
The proposal comes from Massad Boulos, President Trump's senior adviser for Arab and African affairs. It calls for a 90-day truce in the war between Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, followed by talks to end the fighting and restart a path back to civilian rule[1]. The idea is simple: stop the shooting first, work out the hard stuff later.
Sudan's army-led government sent back changes. The big one: it wants any truce to include an internationally monitored withdrawal of RSF fighters from the cities they control, not just a freeze of today's front lines[1]. On Sept. 30, Amjad Farid, an adviser to army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, told Reuters that Washington appeared to ignore that condition. He warned the U.S. plan, as written, could push Sudan toward what he called a "Libya-style" partition[1].
That reference matters, so it's worth unpacking. After Libya's 2011 war, the country split into rival governments that each controlled different territory for years, with no single state in charge. Farid's fear is that a truce without a forced RSF withdrawal would let the RSF govern the ground it already holds indefinitely — not a pause in the war, but a permanent split dressed up as one[1].
"Technical Comments," Not a Rejection — According to the Man Making That Case
This is where the stakeholder reversal lands. A reader could easily assume Sudan is simply stonewalling an American peace effort. Farid's own account complicates that. He says the government sent "technical comments" on the plan, not a refusal, and that it's the U.S. side that has gone quiet on the changes Sudan proposed[1][6].
Reuters's own wording backs a middle reading: the government "did not accept" the deal, a looser term than "rejected"[1]. Gen. al-Burhan was more blunt in public. In a Sept. 26 speech in Khartoum, he rejected U.S. "conditions" outright and said he didn't need an American visa at all. "Our goal is to eliminate this militia, no matter the cost," he said[5].
That visa is not incidental. U.S. officials had withheld Burhan's visa to attend the UN General Assembly, and sources told Reuters it was tied to whether he'd accept the truce plan[3]. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he regretted that Burhan was denied entry, even while still calling for an end to the war[9]. Sudan's foreign minister criticized the U.S. move directly[10]. Using a visa as leverage on a sitting head of a warring government is an unusual tool — and Burhan's public response suggests it didn't work the way Washington hoped.
Why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE Don't Agree on Who's the Problem
The U.S. isn't going it alone. In September 2025, a group known as the Quad — the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — jointly called for a three-month humanitarian truce followed by a political process[13]. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both seen as closer to Sudan's army. The UAE is accused by that same army of arming the RSF[1][11].
That means a single "Quad plan" has to thread a needle between backers of opposite sides in the war it's trying to end. It's one reason the plan can look, from Khartoum, less like a neutral proposal and more like pressure applied by a rival's patron.
The RSF, for its part, points to its own track record to argue it's the side actually seeking peace. It said in November 2025 that it accepted the Quad's truce framework, then announced its own unilateral three-month truce[15][16]. Whether that history holds up matters less than what both militaries are doing on the ground right now, which hasn't stopped.
Drones Over El Obeid While the Diplomacy Stalls
Fighting has shifted toward Kordofan, in central Sudan, and the city of El Obeid has taken the worst of it. An RSF drone strike hit a displacement shelter there on Sept. 25, killing two civilians[17]. On Oct. 1, a strike hit a university dormitory, killing at least five[18]. Reuters has separately reported the RSF stepping up deadly drone attacks on frontline cities generally[19].
Behind all of it sits a humanitarian toll that dwarfs the diplomatic back-and-forth. UN agencies say more than 19.5 million people in Sudan, roughly two in five, face crisis-level hunger or worse[20]. Death toll estimates for the war since it began in April 2023 vary enormously, from around 150,000 to over 522,000 depending on the source, which is itself a sign of how hard the country is to get information out of[4][21]. Every day the truce talks drag on is a day aid convoys can't move safely.
Whose Story Gets Told Depends on Whose Side Is Telling It
Coverage of this split along familiar lines. Fox News described Burhan "defying" the U.S.-backed push, framing the war partly as a contest among foreign powers for a strategic foothold[6]. The Daily Caller went further, with a headline saying Sudan "rebukes" America's peace proposal — language that leaves out Farid's "technical comments, not a rejection" framing entirely[7].
Associated Press coverage read differently, describing two competing plans rather than one side defying another: Sudan's prime minister took his own peace proposal to the UN while the U.S. pushed for an immediate truce[8]. Al Jazeera, funded by the Qatari government, led with outrage inside Sudan over the visa denial, with activists calling it political pressure[4]. The National, an Emirati outlet, ran a piece asking whether the visa fight exposes weakness in Burhan's legitimacy — a framing that lines up with the UAE's position in a war where Sudan's army accuses the UAE of backing its enemy[11].
No outlet in this group has published the actual U.S. text of the 90-day proposal, and no on-record State Department response to Farid's partition warning has surfaced either. For now, the question of whether Sudan said no, or just said "not like this," remains exactly what Farid himself calls it: a point of technical disagreement that neither side has stopped fighting long enough to settle.
Summary
Sudan's army-led government has not signed on to a U.S. proposal for a 90-day ceasefire in its civil war against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF)[1]. The plan comes from Massad Boulos, President Trump's senior adviser for Arab and African affairs. It calls for a 90-day truce, then talks to end the war and restart a move to civilian rule[1]. On Sept. 30, Amjad Farid, an adviser to army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, told Reuters the plan could push Sudan toward a 'Libya-style' split. He said Boulos was pressing the army 'to accept a de facto partitioning of the country'[1].
Whether this counts as a 'rejection' is itself disputed. Reuters reported that the government did not accept the deal because the U.S. appeared to ignore its proposed changes[1]. Farid has also said Sudan 'never rejected' the plan and only sent technical comments[6]. Burhan was blunter. In a Sept. 26 speech in Khartoum he refused the U.S. 'conditions' and said he did not want a U.S. visa. 'Our goal is to eliminate this militia, no matter the cost,' he said[5]. The U.S. had withheld his visa to the UN General Assembly, and sources told Reuters it was tied to the truce plan[3].
The main point of dispute is simple to state. The U.S. and its partners want the shooting to stop first, so aid can reach people facing famine, with politics to follow[12][13]. The army wants the RSF to leave cities first, under international monitors[1]. Its fear: a truce that freezes today's front lines would let the RSF keep and govern the ground it holds, as rival governments did in Libya[1]. Meanwhile the fighting continues. RSF drones hit El Obeid in North Kordofan on Sept. 25 and Oct. 1, killing at least seven civilians[17][18].
The Event
On Sept. 30, 2026, Amjad Farid, an adviser to Sudan's army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, told Reuters in New York that a U.S. 90-day ceasefire proposal could lead to a 'Libyan model' partition of Sudan[1]. He said the army-led government had sent changes to the plan. Chief among them was an internationally monitored RSF withdrawal from urban areas, which he said the U.S. appeared to ignore[1]. Earlier, the U.S. had withheld Burhan's UN visa. On Sept. 26 Burhan publicly rejected U.S. truce 'conditions'[3][5].
Undisputed Facts
- Sudan's army (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have been at war since April 2023[4].
- U.S. envoy Massad Boulos has proposed a 90-day ceasefire, followed by negotiations to end the war and resume a move to civilian rule[1].
- The U.S. withheld Burhan's visa to attend the UN General Assembly. Sources told Reuters the visa was linked to accepting the ceasefire plan[3].
- UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he regretted that Burhan was denied a visa[9]. Sudan's foreign minister criticized the U.S. decision[10].
- The Quad (the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE) issued a joint statement on Sept. 12, 2025. It called for a three-month humanitarian truce followed by a political process[13].
- In November 2025 the RSF said it accepted the Quad's humanitarian truce proposal. It later announced a unilateral three-month truce[15][16].
- RSF drone strikes on El Obeid, North Kordofan, killed two civilians on Sept. 25, 2026[17]. Strikes on a Kordofan University dormitory killed at least five on Oct. 1[18].
- UN agencies report more than 19.5 million Sudanese, about two in five people, face crisis-level hunger or worse[20].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Territory decides the endgame
- A 'ceasefire in place' leaves each force where it stands when the shooting stops. That lets aid move quickly. But the side holding ground gets months to run local administration, collect money and build a claim to rule. This is why the army insists on an RSF pullout from cities first. It is also why the U.S. argues that preconditions only delay aid[1][12].
- Hunger sets the clock
- With 19.5 million people facing crisis-level hunger, aid agencies and mediators face pressure to get any pause. Each side can use that pressure against the other[20].
- Outside backers divide the mediators
- The Quad includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia, seen as close to the army, and the UAE, which the army accuses of supporting the RSF. So a single 'Quad plan' still has to satisfy patrons who back opposite sides[13][11].
- U.S. leverage has limits
- Washington used the UN visa as leverage. Burhan answered publicly that he wants no visa, which shows how little a visa can force on a leader fighting for survival[3][5].
Material realityThe war is in its fourth year. Fighting has shifted toward Kordofan, where RSF drones are hitting El Obeid[17][18][19]. Death toll estimates vary widely. Compilations of sources range from about 150,000 to more than 522,000, so claims about the war's rank among Africa's conflicts depend on which estimate is used[21]. Whatever happens to the U.S. plan, millions of people still depend on aid that cannot reach them safely while fighting continues[20].
Narrative as a weaponFour actors are shaping how this story is seen. The army-led government wants readers to see the U.S. plan as a 'Libya-style' carve-up and itself as a state defending its unity[1][5]. Its 'never rejected' line[6] aims to dodge blame for blocking peace. The U.S. and its Quad partners want the story told as a humanitarian truce one side is stalling[12][13]. The RSF points to its earlier truce declarations to cast itself as the peace-seeker[15][16]. Media framing tends to follow those lines. U.S. right outlets frame defiance of America. Emirati media questions Burhan's legitimacy. Qatari media stresses Sudanese anger at U.S. pressure. Several summaries, including the assignment's own premise, call the plan 'U.S.-brokered' and the response a 'rejection.' In fact no deal has been brokered. Whether the government 'rejected' the plan or 'did not accept' it is disputed in its own officials' words[1][5][6].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe army says it is Sudan's legitimate state, not one of two equal 'parties.' It says a truce that leaves the RSF in the cities it seized would reward a militia for taking territory by force. That would split the country the way rival governments split Libya[1]. Its condition is concrete: an internationally monitored RSF exit from urban areas[1]. It also argues that a superpower should not use access to the UN as leverage over a member state's leader. And it says Sudanese voters, not foreign governments, should decide who governs after the war[4][6][10].
WhyTo win back all of Sudan's territory, including Darfur. To deny the RSF any political future. To avoid a deal that freezes the RSF's gains in place[1][5].
Impact on themSaying no risks the army's ties with Washington, as the visa episode shows. It also risks being blamed for prolonging the hunger crisis[3][11]. Accepting a freeze could cost it territory and its claim to be the sole government[1].
Frames it asWashington's case is that people are starving now, and every precondition means more delay and more deaths. So the guns must stop first. The hard questions of withdrawal and power can be negotiated during the truce[12][13]. The plan is not a U.S.-only project. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both seen as close to the army, endorsed the same roadmap. So did the UAE, which the army accuses of backing the RSF[13]. A truce that turns into a permanent ceasefire, followed by a civilian-led transition, is what the plan aims for[12].
WhyA visible diplomatic win. Less famine and mass displacement. Keeping rival powers from gaining a strategic foothold on the Red Sea[6][12].
Impact on themThe army's refusal and the visa clash put U.S. leverage and credibility on the line. One analyst told RFI the U.S. has 'alienated' Sudan's army[24].
Frames it asThe RSF presents itself as ready for peace. It points to its November 2025 acceptance of the Quad truce and its own unilateral three-month truce as proof the army is the side refusing to stop fighting[15][16].
WhyTo keep the ground and political standing it has won, and to avoid having to pull out of cities before any political deal[1].
Impact on themA ceasefire in place would leave its forces where they are. A monitored withdrawal, as the army demands, would cost it territory[1]. Its drone strikes on cities such as El Obeid have drawn reports of civilian deaths[17][18][19].
Frames it asFor aid groups the issue is access, not who wins. Food and medicine cannot reach famine areas while fighting continues. Any truce that opens roads saves lives[20]. Guterres called for an end to the war while voicing regret over the visa denial[9].
WhySafe routes for aid, and protection for civilians in cities such as El Obeid[9][20].
Impact on themMore than 19.5 million people face crisis-level hunger or worse[20]. Civilians in Kordofan cities are being hit by drone strikes while the diplomacy stalls[17][18].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.1
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuters | International wire (U.S./U.K. center) | 2 | US ceasefire plan for Sudan could lead to Libya-style partition, adviser says | It puts the adviser's partition warning in the headline, clearly attributed. It reports that the government 'did not accept' the deal rather than flatly 'rejected' it. No U.S. response is in the headline. |
| Associated Press | U.S. center wire | 3 | Sudan's prime minister takes his peace plan to the UN, but US urges humanitarian truce now | Framed as two competing plans, which gives Sudan's government its own proposal rather than casting it only as a refuser. 'Now' carries the U.S. urgency argument. |
| Sudan Tribune | Sudanese independent, Paris-based | 3 | Sudan's Burhan rejects US truce conditions, says no visa needed | A direct report that quotes Burhan's strongest lines, including 'cleanse Sudan all the way to Darfur.' It keeps the focus on 'conditions' rather than the truce itself. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | Outcry in Sudan as US reportedly holds al-Burhan's UN visa over truce plan | It leads with Sudanese anger and activists' 'political pressure' charge, so the visa becomes the story rather than the truce terms. 'Reportedly' properly flags that the visa link rests on sources. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 5 | Sudan's al-Burhan defies US-backed ceasefire push after visa denial | 'Defies' casts the army as resisting U.S. authority. The URL slug frames a 'forgotten war' as a contest among foreign powers for a 'strategic foothold,' a great-power lens over a humanitarian one. |
| The Daily Caller | U.S. right | 6 | Sudan Rebukes America's Peace Proposal | 'Rebukes America's' turns a dispute over withdrawal terms into a snub of the country. It drops the adviser's claim that Sudan only sent technical comments. |
| The National | Emirati, owned by Abu Dhabi ruling-family interests | 6 | US visa row shines spotlight on Al Burhan's legitimacy, Sudan expert says | It turns the visa row into a question of Burhan's legitimacy. That matches the line of the UAE, which Sudan's army accuses of backing the RSF. The expert's view is attributed. |
References
- US ceasefire plan for Sudan could lead to Libya-style partition, adviser says — Reuters · International commercial wire service, U.S./U.K. center
- Sudan Official Rejects US Ceasefire Plan, Warns of Libya-Style Partition — The Media Line · U.S.-registered nonprofit Middle East news agency
- Exclusive-US Withholding Sudanese Leader's Visa Over Ceasefire Plan, Sources Say — Reuters · International commercial wire service, U.S./U.K. center
- Outcry in Sudan as US reportedly holds al-Burhan's UN visa over truce plan — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Sudan's Burhan rejects US truce conditions, says no visa needed — Sudan Tribune · Independent Sudanese news site based in Paris
- Sudan's al-Burhan defies US-backed ceasefire push after visa denial — Fox News · U.S. right, owned by Fox Corporation
- Sudan Rebukes America's Peace Proposal — The Daily Caller · U.S. right, conservative digital outlet
- Sudan's prime minister takes his peace plan to the UN, but US urges humanitarian truce now — Associated Press · U.S. nonprofit news cooperative, center
- UN chief calls for end to Sudan war, voices regret that Burhan was denied US visa — Middle East Monitor · London-based outlet, pro-Palestinian, viewed as sympathetic to Qatar and Turkey
- Sudan foreign minister slams US over visa block on army chief — Africanews · Pan-African broadcaster owned by Euronews group
- US visa row shines spotlight on Al Burhan's legitimacy, Sudan expert says — The National · Emirati, owned by Abu Dhabi ruling-family interests; the UAE is accused by Sudan's army of backing the RSF
- US working with partners on push for humanitarian truce in Sudan, says Trump adviser — The National · Emirati, owned by Abu Dhabi ruling-family interests
- Joint Statement on Restoring Peace and Security in Sudan (Sept. 12, 2025) — U.S. Department of State (archived by GlobalSecurity.org) · Primary source: official statement of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE
- Marking Three Years of Conflict in Sudan with Sanctions and Appeal for Humanitarian Truce — U.S. Department of State · Primary source: official U.S. government statement
- RSF says it agrees to mediators' ceasefire proposal in Sudan war — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- RSF announces unilateral three-month 'humanitarian truce' in Sudan — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- RSF drone strike kills two at displacement shelter in Sudan's El Obeid — Sudan Tribune · Independent Sudanese news site based in Paris
- 5 killed in drone strike on university dormitory in El-Obeid, medics say — Radio Tamazuj · Independent Sudan/South Sudan outlet, Dutch-registered, donor-funded
- Sudan's RSF Steps up Deadly Drone Attacks on Frontline Cities — Reuters · International commercial wire service, U.S./U.K. center
- Sudan hunger crisis deepens as UN warns millions face acute food shortages — UN News · Primary source: official United Nations news service
- Sudanese civil war (2023–present) — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited reference compiling multiple casualty estimates; used here only to show how widely they range
- US has 'alienated' Sudan's army in 'complex war' analyst tells RFI — RFI · French state-funded international broadcaster