How US and UN plan to support Sudan with $700 million in aid

The United States and the United Nations have established a new Sudan Humanitarian Fund, with initial pledges of $700 million to address what the United Nations has termed the “world’s largest humanitarian crisis.” The new initiative was launched in Washington and is supported mainly by the United Arab Emirates, which has pledged $500 million, and the United States, which has pledged $200 million. Saudi Arabia and other countries have also pledged to support the initiative.

UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher, the head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), described the fund as an expression of the international community’s determination. However, the extent of the destruction in Sudan poses a critical question: Is this level of funding commensurate with the crisis, or is it symbolic of the international failure?

Sudan has been embroiled in a vicious struggle for power since April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The Numbers Expose a Vast Humanitarian Gap

While $700 million is significant in isolation, it pales against the scale of need. According to UN estimates:

• More than 25 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—require humanitarian assistance
• 14 million people have been forcibly displaced, including over 3 million refugees who have fled to neighboring countries
• Famine has been declared in multiple areas, including parts of Darfur and South Kordofan
• Over 40,000 deaths have been documented, though UN officials warn the real toll could be several times higher due to underreporting, siege warfare, and lack of access

The UN’s 2025 Sudan Humanitarian Response Plan seeks over $4 billion, meaning the newly announced fund covers less than 20% of projected needs—and that is assuming all pledges materialize quickly.

Donor Politics and the Problem of Credibility

The composition of donors introduces uncomfortable contradictions.

The UAE, the biggest donor to the fund, has been accused repeatedly by UN experts, US Congress members, and human rights groups of supporting the RSF, which Abu Dhabi has consistently denied. While humanitarian aid is sorely needed, it cannot serve as a substitute for accountability if the donor countries are being accused of propping up the conflict.

This creates a situation where humanitarian aid becomes a shield for reputation rather than a corrective measure.

Similarly, although the Trump administration’s $200 million commitment comes from a $2 billion global humanitarian reserve, previous US policy choices, including cuts to USAID, have undermined the long-term humanitarian infrastructure in Sudan, including its health sector, which has been weakened by decades of sanctions.

Truce Talks: Fragile Promises, Familiar Failures

US senior adviser Massad Boulos stated that the US has offered a “comprehensive proposal” for a humanitarian ceasefire that could be reached in the coming weeks. However, previous attempts at a ceasefire, facilitated by the US, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, have fallen apart within days, or even hours.

Both the SAF and RSF have a documented pattern of:

• Violating humanitarian pauses
• Attacking civilian infrastructure during negotiations
• Restricting aid access to besieged populations

Setting February 17, the start of Ramadan, as a benchmark for progress echoes earlier symbolic deadlines that failed to translate into sustained relief on the ground.

War by Starvation: Kadugli as a Case Study

The recent conflict in South Kordofan, especially around the areas of Kadugli and Dilling, highlights the fact that humanitarian requirements are being pushed by military strategy rather than being the result of collateral damage.

Kadugli has been besieged by the RSF since the outbreak of the conflict, which led to the declaration of famine by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification in November. While the Sudanese military has recently announced the opening of a major road connecting Kadugli and Dilling, the access is still insecure.

On Tuesday, a drone attack by the RSF targeted a medical facility in Kadugli, killing 15 civilians, including seven children, as reported by the Sudan Doctors Network.

The Structural Failure of the International Response

Sudan’s crisis is not merely underfunded—it is structurally deprioritized. Despite being the largest displacement crisis globally, Sudan receives less media attention and fewer high-level diplomatic interventions than conflicts with comparable civilian tolls.

Key failures include:

• No unified international sanctions regime against perpetrators
• Weak enforcement of the UN arms embargo on Darfur
• Absence of an international protection mechanism for civilians
• Chronic underfunding of local Sudanese aid networks, which deliver the majority of assistance

Without addressing these political dimensions, humanitarian funding risks becoming a bandage over a widening wound.

Aid Without Accountability Risks Perpetuating the War

While the Sudan Humanitarian Fund may save lives in the short term, it does not resolve the deeper contradictions at the heart of the crisis. Aid is being mobilized without parallel pressure to halt arms flows, enforce accountability for war crimes, or dismantle the economic incentives driving the conflict.

As Sudan enters its third year of war, the international community faces a stark choice:
treat Sudan as a perpetual humanitarian emergency—or confront the political and military enablers of its collapse.

Without the latter, even billions more may only prolong survival, not restore peace.