As the violent conflict between Sudan’s Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) ravages the country — displacing millions and pushing Sudan toward collapse — the question arises: how would Donald Trump respond? With Sudan’s future uncertain, would Trump and the Republican Party develop a coherent strategy to end the violence, or would the war unfold without a clear US policy?Trump’s foreign policy during his first term was defined by unpredictability, a focus on “America First,” and a reluctance to intervene in conflicts that did not directly threaten US interests. His administration largely avoided foreign entanglements, preferring economic measures, diplomatic efforts, and a drawdown of military commitments. So, what might a second Trump term mean for Sudan, and how might the Republican Party’s broader views on international intervention shape the US. response? Trump’s foreign policy was marked by a strong aversion to US military involvement unless there was a clear, tangible benefit. His “America First” doctrine prioritised US economic and security interests, often at the expense of multilateral diplomacy or international humanitarian efforts. He was deeply sceptical of interventions in regions like the Middle East, Africa, or Central Asia, where the US had limited security interests.During his first term, Trump withdrew troops from Syria and Afghanistan, arguing that the US had spent too many years in “endless wars” with minimal returns. His administration distanced itself from multilateral institutions like Nato and took a hard line on foreign aid, particularly to countries not doing enough to defend themselves.In the case of Sudan, Trump’s administration focused on pragmatic actions — applying targeted sanctions against key Sudanese figures and brokering Sudan’s normalisation with Israel through the Abraham Accords — while showing little interest in deeper involvement in the internal conflict. Given this history, it is unlikely that Trump would dramatically shift his approach, especially as the Sudanese conflict doesn’t present an immediate national security threat to the US.While there is no unified Republican stance on Sudan, many within the GOP share Trump’s reluctance to engage militarily in regions like Africa. Republicans tend to prioritise countering threats from China, Russia, and Iran, and would likely resist military involvement in conflicts that do not directly affect US security.For most Republicans, the idea of military intervention or “nation-building” in Sudan is unlikely to gain traction. However, a faction of the party, particularly those with a more interventionist stance, might advocate for more direct action if framed around US interests. For example, some could push for counterterrorism measures if Sudan became a haven for extremist groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS.Even these more interventionist voices would likely oppose large-scale operations in Sudan. Instead, the GOP would likely emphasise targeted sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and support for international peace talks. Given Sudan’s complex internal dynamics and the lack of direct US strategic interest, it would likely remain a “complicated problem” for Republicans, one that doesn’t overshadow other priorities like immigration, trade, or domestic issues.Trump’s response to the Sudan conflict would likely focus on diplomatic and economic measures, rather than military action. He would prioritise safeguarding US security interests and minimising US involvement in conflicts not directly affecting America.A diplomatic solution, in line with his “America First” policy, would be the preferred approach, using external actors to influence the situation. Trump may look to regional powers like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to play a larger role in negotiations, using their influence to broker a ceasefire.Economic sanctions would likely remain a key tool to pressure Sudan’s leaders into peace talks. Additionally, Trump could use economic leverage, such as restricting military aid or blocking Sudan’s access to international financial institutions, without committing US to reconstruction.On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers would likely support the administration’s cautious approach. While there would be bipartisan backing for humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts, opposition to large-scale military or peacekeeping intervention would remain firm.Some Republicans might push for stronger sanctions or more robust diplomatic measures to pressure the warring factions, but military involvement would remain a non-starter. If Sudan’s conflict escalated to the point where it directly threatened US interests — such as the rise of extremist groups or instability in neighbouring countries — Republicans might support stronger action. However, absent a direct security threat, there would be little appetite for major US involvement.Trump’s policy towards Sudan would likely be one of limited engagement. The focus would be on economic and diplomatic measures, with the US leveraging its influence to push for peace talks and a political resolution without overextending resources.Sudan’s fate would likely rest with regional actors and international bodies, while the US focuses on protecting its own interests. In closing, Trump and the Republican Party would likely take steps to address Sudan’s war through economic and diplomatic tools, with minimal US involvement. The US role would centre on supporting regional diplomacy, applying economic pressure, and encouraging multilateral efforts to halt the violence, without committing to nation-building or large-scale interventions.l Mohamed Sulieman al-Shazly is a writer and senior TV producer. The British Sudanese author has won several awards. mohsulieman@gmail.com