US Congress weighs landmark Sudan bills to tighten sanctions and accountability

By Suleiman Siri for Radio Dabanga

---

The US Congress is considering two bills that could significantly reshape Washington’s policy towards Sudan by placing future action on the war under a stronger legal framework rather than relying on executive decisions.

The proposed legislation, the Prevention of External Aggression and Conflict Escalation Act of 2026 and the US Participation in Sudanese Peace Act, would expand congressional oversight of US policy on Sudan while increasing pressure on those accused of fuelling the conflict.

The bills focus on peace efforts, accountability for atrocities, sanctions, and action against foreign actors alleged to have financed or armed the warring parties. Their introduction comes as rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have urged Congress to accelerate the legislation and strengthen mechanisms for accountability.

Shift from policy to law

Political analyst and researcher Saif Jibril told Radio Dabanga that the bills represent a major shift in how the United States approaches Sudan.

“The most important strength is that they move the Sudan file from scattered political reactions to a stable institutional legal framework,” he said.

“They would place the war under continuous congressional oversight while broadening investigations beyond combatants to include financing networks, gold trading, aviation, banks, shipping companies and external actors helping sustain the conflict.”

Jibril cautioned, however, that the legislation has not yet become law and could still be amended, merged or delayed during the legislative process.

He also noted that some proposed sanctions would remain at the discretion of the US president.

“The United States cannot end the war or halt the flow of weapons on its own,” he said. “That will require cooperation from the European Union, Britain, the African Union, Arab states and the United Nations.”

Greater financial pressure

If approved, Jibril believes the legislation would increase legal, diplomatic and financial pressure on those who finance or profit from the war.

Rather than paving the way for direct military intervention, he said, the bills would strengthen Washington’s ability to use the international financial system, including the US dollar and global banking networks, to disrupt funding linked to the conflict and raise the cost of continuing the war.

“These laws alone will not end the conflict,” Jibril said. “But they would become a powerful tool alongside diplomacy, sanctions, mediation, civilian protection and accountability, helping create conditions for a more sustainable political settlement.”

Long legislative process

Jibril explained that both bills must pass through several constitutional stages before becoming law.

After introduction in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, the legislation is referred to the relevant committee, where lawmakers scrutinise the text, hold hearings with officials and experts, consider amendments and vote on whether to advance the bill.

Approval by committee does not make the legislation law. Both the House and Senate must pass identical versions before the final text is sent to the president.

The president may sign the bill into law, veto it, allow it to become law without a signature after ten days while Congress remains in session, or use a so-called “pocket veto” if Congress adjourns before the constitutional deadline.

Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Binding on future administrations

Jibril said transforming Sudan policy into federal law would make it far more difficult for future administrations to reverse course.

“Policies issued by the State Department or the White House can be changed relatively easily by a new administration,” he said. “Federal law, however, remains binding until Congress amends or repeals it.”

He added that the legislation would require regular reports to Congress on the war, sanctions enforcement, countries and entities accused of financing or arming the conflict, and the broader US strategy for ending the war.

The administration would also be required to report on financing networks, gold trading, airlines, banks and transport companies linked to the conflict—information that has not previously been collected in such a structured manner.

Sanctions could target financiers

Jibril said the proposed measures would give the US government broad authority to sanction individuals and organisations found to have financed, armed or otherwise enabled the conflict.

Potential penalties include freezing US-based assets, banning transactions with American individuals or companies, cancelling visas, restricting access to the US financial system, and prohibiting government contracts.

He said sanctions could extend beyond military leaders to businessmen, financial intermediaries, banks, airlines, transport companies and other entities involved in sustaining the war.

Impact on weapons flows

Asked whether the legislation could curb arms shipments into Sudan, Jibril said it would increase pressure but could not completely stop the flow of weapons.

He noted that companies or banks placed on US sanctions lists often find themselves isolated from the global financial system because international institutions seek to avoid secondary sanctions.

“The US dollar remains the world’s principal trading currency,” he said. “Many international transactions pass through American banks. If a sanctioned individual or company is involved, US authorities can block or freeze those transfers.”

Jibril argued that this financial leverage could make it significantly harder for networks supporting the war to move money internationally, even if they operate outside the United States.