President Trump’s officials are increasingly concerned that ongoing violence in eastern Congo is undermining U.S. efforts to implement a peace agreement aimed at ending a 30-year conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.
These warnings push back against claims suggesting that Trump has ended what some call an “endless war.”
Massad Boulos, a special adviser to Trump and the father-in-law of his daughter Tiffany, acknowledged last week that fighting persists and more effort is required to implement the U.S.-negotiated peace deal. He noted, “Many are skeptical… they think, ‘Oh, the fight isn’t over.’ These situations don’t wrap up overnight.” He added, “The implementation of the peace agreement… has it really begun? It’s still not perfect.”
Shortly thereafter, Trump’s UN ambassador, Mike Waltz, expressed concerns that the M23 rebels and the Rwandan Defense Forces were obstructing UN peacekeeping operations, weakening Washington’s efforts in the region. “We strongly condemn the ongoing obstruction of Monusco operations, particularly by the M23 and the Rwandan Defense Forces in North Kivu. Such actions are absolutely unacceptable,” Waltz stated during a UN Security Council meeting on September 30.
His comments coincided with Trump leading a gathering of U.S. military leaders alongside the Congo’s Secretary of Defense. “They’ve been fighting for 31 years with 10 million dead. I’ve been involved—I’m very proud of it.”
“Peace is still a promise,”
During the UN Security Council session, testimonies indicated that an escalation in attacks by M23 and other militias in eastern Congo led to a staggering 122% increase in civilian fatalities compared to just months prior. Reports of human rights violations attributed to the M23 far exceeded those linked to other groups. According to a UN report, these violations include widespread killings, forced military recruitment, and severe crimes against humanity, such as torture, abduction, and sexual violence.
Bintu Keita, the UN envoy overseeing the Congo, remarked, “Peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo largely remains a promise. There’s a mismatch between the progress we see on paper and the reality impacted by violence.”
Trump’s involvement in peace negotiations began early this year, hitting a high point on June 27 when the foreign ministers of Rwanda and Congo signed a foundational peace agreement. Although Rwanda and Congo aren’t officially at war, the chaotic aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide catalyzed three decades of violence in the region. The genocide resulted in Hutu refugees—some of whom had committed violence against Tutsis—fleeing into eastern Congo.
Rwanda has recently admitted to having troops in eastern Congo, claiming it’s a self-defense mechanism, while denying support for the M23—a claim the United Nations disputes.
In general, Kinshasa asserts that they are under invasion. “Kinshasa sees similarities with Ukraine—they believe they have the right to defend themselves,” highlights the framing context surrounding the conflict. Rwandan narratives suggest that this conflict is fundamentally Congolese, portraying Congolese Tutsi as perpetual victims, while placing blame on Kinshasa for failing to address underlying tensions.
Welcome Engagement from Washington
Persistent diplomatic actions from various nations, including Angola and others, have aided conflict resolution recently. Qatar is mediating dialogues involving the Congo and the Rwanda-affiliated M23 rebels.
Interestingly, Boulos led early diplomatic efforts earlier this year, intending to leverage economic development to promote peace by connecting U.S. investments with critical mineral development in Eastern Congo.
“It’s unusual to weave commercial mineral trade into peace negotiations. It’s like wearing a formal suit with casual sneakers,” noted Moncrieff. Yet, he didn’t entirely dismiss the U.S. engagement in the process.
He said, “In a broader sense, the Washington Agreement is significant as it upholds principles of territorial integrity and addresses key issues at the highest levels.” However, he critiqued Rwanda for its reluctance to change, arguing that only strong measures, like withholding World Bank support, could initiate a shift from Kigali.
Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has engaged with both Kinshasa and the M23, believes that the Congolese government shares some responsibility for the stalled peace talks. He mentioned in an email that Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi needs to engage directly with the M23 for any real progress. “If they think external peace processes will resolve everything, it could worsen the situation, making it easier for Rwanda to dominate with M23’s support over the Congolese government,” he stated.
Rubin remarked on the potential benefits of U.S. involvement and highlighted plans to enhance the economic framework as part of the peace process, aiming to revitalize mineral supply chains and implement reforms.
“That was a positive stride—trade prospered prior to Tshisekedi’s second election when ethnic populism reignited conflict,” he concluded. “However, when conversing with individuals trading from M23 territory, they consistently emphasized their priorities were economic, focusing on trade routes rather than broader political issues.”
He cautioned against Trump’s penchant for quick fixes, stressing that rapid announcements often undermine serious diplomatic pursuits. “Optimism should not replace measured diplomacy, and premature declarations lessen pressure on combative groups,” he cautioned. “There’s no real advancement without genuine national dialogue within the DRC—the avoidance of this by Tshisekedi risks prolonging the conflict.”
Moncrieff agreed that while a sustainable solution is achievable, it necessitates patient, skillful diplomacy, which, he warned, does not guarantee success. “This is a tough problem to tackle,” he stated.
