Will naming, shaming & sanctioning terror in Sudan stop bloodshed?

Will naming, shaming & sanctioning terror in Sudan stop bloodshed? In June, a bipartisan group of senators introduced (foreign.senate.gov) the Preventing External Aggression and Conflict Escalation (PEACE) in Sudan Act of 2026. In the House, the pending U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act and the RSF Terrorism Designation Act partly overlap with the PEACE Act. One of the most consequential questions raised by the various bills (internationalpolicy.org › sudan congress action) is whether to designate Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary force that has been at war with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since 2023, as a terrorist group.What effects could a terrorist designation for the RSF have? Would a designation make ceasefire negotiations – being pursued, although amid much criticism, by President Donald Trump’s Africa advisor Massad Boulos – easier or more difficult? And would a designation constrain the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is credibly accused of backing the RSF? To think through these issues, I talked with several experts on Sudan and on terrorism designations. The stakes go beyond Sudan. There are strong arguments for and against a designation. On the one hand, designating the RSF would index Washington’s commitment to stabilizing Sudan and ending a war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and sent ripples throughout the Horn of Africa. The UAE already stands accused of pursuing a destabilizing and divisive foreign policy from Yemen to Sudan to Libya with its support for strongmen who fuel conflict (reuters.com). Targeting it could show Gulf monarchies that there are limits to their influence in Washington.On the other hand, sanctions regimes face increasing criticism, as their application from Iran (sup.org › how sanctions work) to Russia (theconversation.com) have largely failed to produce sought-after behavior changes, have generally hardened the resolve of their targets, and resulted in unintended negative consequences for civilians. Terrorism designations can even make it harder for humanitarian relief agencies to operate due to fears they could be tarred as providing “material support.” The terrorism designations system has also been criticized as politicized and susceptible to executive overreach. In designating the RSF, a genocidal and destructive group by many standards, the U.S. might nevertheless reinforce problematic powers of the national security state.Moreover, several experts suggested that a designation will have little effect in isolation. If a designation is worth pursuing, it would need to be part of a broader strategy that the Trump administration has not, so far, articulated.Terrorism designations: Mechanisms and limitations The U.S. government has multiple designation mechanisms. The pending bills ask the secretary of state to apply the Specially Designated Global Terrorism (SDGT) mechanism. The SDGT designation can apply to a group or to an individual, and can be made by either State or Treasury, albeit under different parameters. The other main designation that might apply to the RSF – the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – can only be made by State. Both designation mechanisms apply financial sanctions, seeking to make it difficult for the designated entities to move money through the international banking system, as well as to hold property or other assets in the United States and elsewhere. The FTO designation is potentially more sweeping in that it criminalizes providing “material support” to a designated group. Meanwhile, the State Department maintains a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, which included Sudan