The U.S.-led peace process in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is in danger.
Although violence involving the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels had continued in recent months, it is now set to escalate. Both sides have indicated that the U.S.-backed ceasefires are effectively dead, following weeks of mutual military buildups, belligerent rhetoric, and now some of the worst fighting between M23 and Congolese troops since early 2025. If the Trump administration wants to break the cycle of failed peace efforts while ensuring access to critical minerals, it must hold the warring factions — and those who support them — accountable.
The U.S. brokered a peace deal between the two nations in late June, after the culmination of an M23-Rwandan offensive that gobbled up swaths of territory in the eastern part of Congo, including two provincial capitals. U.S. and Qatari diplomatic efforts helped stem M23’s advance and led to ceasefires between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and M23 by late July, with the ambitious goal of reaching a longer-term peace deal in the following weeks.
However, peace talks have since stalled. All sides have violated their ceasefire commitments with impunity. M23 is largely responsible for initiating the latest round of fighting, launching offensives on two axes in North and South Kivu provinces.
M23 had also intensified brutal counterinsurgency operations in areas under its control against pro-Congolese government militias, some of them extremist Hutu militants with loose ties to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Although these militants are legitimate military targets, the unilateral operations violate various aspects of the U.S.-backed peace framework, which prohibited any new M23 attacks against “all forces” and committed Kinshasa to take lead in “neutralizing” extremists in exchange for the Rwandan army’s withdrawal from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Rwandan troops allegedly participated in these counterinsurgency operations. If confirmed, this would clearly violate Rwanda’s commitments to military non-interference as part of the U.S.-brokered peace deal. Even if Rwandan troops did not participate in the operations, Rwanda almost certainly supports the operations, given that the United Nations reported Rwanda had maintained command and control over M23 military operations as of early 2025. Rwanda’s lack of pressure on M23 to stop these killings would also violate its commitments in the U.S. peace deal, in which Rwanda agreed to “ensure that all armed groups” in North and South Kivu “cease engaging in hostilities.”
The Congolese government has also failed to uphold its commitments to the U.S.-backed framework. It has not reined in the various pro-government militia groups that have regularly attacked M23 positions throughout the eastern part of the country. It has also committed numerous human rights abuses and ethnically motivated acts of violence. With M23 facing regular attacks, expecting the group to maintain a defensive posture and cease attacks against “all forces engaged in the conflict” is unrealistic. M23 and Rwanda have also used these attacks and ethnic violence to justify M23’s offensive operations.
U.S. officials should work with their partners in the international community to investigate ceasefire and possible international law violations and hold perpetrators accountable. The U.N., human rights watchdogs and Congolese media reported that M23’s counterinsurgency operations involved summary executions of hundreds of civilians.
The U.S. has already called for a U.N. Security Council briefing on abuses against civilians. The U.S. should help support the U.N.’s ongoing fact-finding missions into such abuses by demanding that U.N. experts and officials gain access to M23-held territory, which the group has denied. Individuals linked to the continued violence in eastern Congo should face unilateral U.S. sanctions and possible multilateral sanctions.
Accountability must extend to the Congolese and the Rwandans, and the U.S. should demand that both follow through on their promise to use their leverage over the warring factions to stop the violence. The U.S. should consider all options — including further sanctions against Kinshasa, Rwanda and specific individuals — should they obstruct peace efforts. Accountability may also mean using the U.S. regional economic framework as leverage. Both nations would both stand to gain from the proposed framework, and U.S. officials should make clear that these “peace dividends” only come into effect if there is genuine peace.
With the Congolese government, the U.S. and its partners must confront the reality that the government is likely unable to control the various militias. One possible solution is pulling these groups into African Union peace efforts between the Congolese government and all armed groups in the eastern Congo. While Kinshasa may view the dialogue as a threat, U.S. officials should use the initiative as necessary if pro-government militias continue operating unrestrained.
Trump’s peace framework in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is facing an existential test. The president regularly touts the progress made thus far, but it is in jeopardy, and the administration needs to flex its muscles to salvage the effort. Without action, the framework risks becoming another failed peace attempt, and the U.S. economic framework will not have the stability it needs to take root.
Liam Karr is the Africa team lead for the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. Yale Ford is an Africa analyst for the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.
