Follow us on social

google cta
Congo DRC M23

No, Trump did not 'end' the war in the Congo. It's as bloody as ever.

The president boasted this week that he personally brought peace to eight global conflicts. This wasn't one of them.

Analysis | Africa
google cta
google cta

Earlier this week, Donald Trump made the bold claim that he’s responsible for ending eight wars since taking office this past January — in other words, nearly one war each month of his presidency.

Among the wars on his list is the decades-long conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, which has mired central Africa since the days of the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s in a quagmire conflict involving over one hundred armed groups.

But despite Trump’s claim, the DRC-Rwanda conflict is not yet over. And despite belligerent actors taking some positive steps to bring about a lasting peace — including Tuesday’s announcement that the Rwanda-supported M23 rebel group and the DRC have agreed on a mechanism to monitor a fragile ceasefire — the war remains an active conflict between the two neighbors and their allied groups.

In June, the foreign ministers of both the DRC and Rwanda sat together in the Oval Office to sign a peace agreement brokered in part by the United States. During the public event, the leaders from both countries lavished praise on the role Trump and his administration had played in securing this deal, and each expressed hope that this would serve as the first major step in ending the conflict.

Though the deal served as a positive step for all parties and great publicity for a White House eager to be seen as brokering peace in conflicts across the globe, there was a glaring omission in the agreement that threatened the durability of the peace from the onset.

The Rwandan-supported M23 rebel group — which is the primary belligerent against the DRC and its allies — was not included in the deal’s negotiations and was not a party to the inked agreement. The M23 has said that any deal between the DRC and Rwanda is merely an agreement between those two countries, and does not apply to them.

The success of the agreement, therefore, depends on getting M23 to agree to end its hostilities towards the DRC. This would happen if Rwanda tried to rein in the group by stopping or limiting its supply of materials to M23 and ending its logistical support for the group’s operations.

In the weeks following the signing ceremony, the DRC and M23 engaged in discussions in Doha, Qatar, mediated primarily by the Qataris. The talks led to an initial ceasefire and a framework agreement for a long-term peace deal between the two sides on July 19, which stated that negotiations for a final, long-term peace deal would begin on August 8 and conclude with an agreement signed no later than August 18.

But since the July 19 agreement, fighting has continued between the M23 rebels and the DRC, as well as with the many other rebel groups a part of the conflict.

As evidence that M23 is not the only major group involved in the war, on July 27, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) — another armed group fighting against the DRC — killed at least 40 Christians worshiping at a Congolese church. This came days after the ADF killed 82 civilians in eastern Congo.

And between July 10 and July 30, M23 was responsible for killing at least 140 people near the Virunga National Park in eastern DRC, including at least 14 people cut down by machetes. This is in addition to at least 319 people killed by M23 between July 9 and July 21 across four villages in eastern DRC.

In both sets of attacks, M23 continued to fight and kill for days after the July 19 ceasefire agreement was signed. Earlier this month the DRC government accused M23 of killing “hundreds” of people through “assassinations and summary executions” in September — weeks after the initial ceasefire agreement was adopted.

Long-term negotiations have sputtered. August 18 came and went without a final peace deal, as disagreements between the two sides on whether the initial framework required the M23 to fully withdraw from territory it had conquered proved to be an impasse in negotiations.

With the war continuing past stated deadlines, earlier this week the United Nations’ (UN) special envoy for the Great Lakes region of Africa, Huang Xia, said that while the peace efforts to end the war “are commendable and promising, they have not yet delivered on their promises: the agreed ceasefire is not being respected.”

In a major positive step towards a permanent ceasefire and lasting peace, on Tuesday the DRC and M23 agreed to form a monitoring body which will oversee the ceasefire between the two sides. The agreement came after weeks of negotiations primarily mediated and hosted by Qatar, with the United States also participating in discussions. The monitoring body is composed of representatives from the DRC, M23, and the 12-member regional body for that area known as the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region. In addition, representatives from Qatar, the United States, and African Union will be a part of the monitoring team.

This monitoring body is one of two steps required before the two could start negotiating the long-term peace deal, per the July framework agreement. The other is a prisoner swap. Although it was agreed to in September, the exchange has yet to take place.

Ending a war in which many rebel groups have joined rival factions to fight in a decades-long conflict stemming from a genocide is far easier said than done.

Trump’s focus on peace is in the right place. But his claim that his administration has successfully “ended the war” disintegrates in the face of continued fighting and killing in the eastern DRC. More work will be required from the president’s team to propel this process over the finish line.


Top photo credit: Demonstration raising awareness of the conflict and humanitarian crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo in Brussels in the Brussels Capital province of Belgium on October 8, 2025. (Hans Lucas/Reuters)
google cta
Analysis | Africa
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands
Top image credit: US House Speaker Mike Johnson arrives for press briefing at Columbia University in New York on April 24, 2024. (Shutterstock/lev radin)

Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands

Washington Politics

This week efforts under the War Powers Act to check President Trump’s unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Iran failed on a mostly party line split in both the House and the Senate. The result isn’t all that surprising. The naivety, however, on the role of Congress in matters of war is staggering. Congress is in desperate need of a civics refresher.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), in response to reporter questions on the application of the War Powers Act’s provisions to the president’s actions in Iran, said, “I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities. … As you know, there’s a lot of controversy around, questions around the War Powers Act, but I think the president is acting in the best interests of the nation.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.