The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed the “Washington Accord,” a U.S.-brokered pact hailed by President Donald Trump as a “major breakthrough.” The agreement mandates phased Rwandan troop withdrawals, disarmament of militias including the FDLR, and expanded cross-border trade under U.S. guarantees to ease regional tensions.
Trump’s claim:
“I stopped it … I got it stopped and saved lots of lives.”
The astute and nearly tenacious rejection of the ongoing developments has nevertheless attracted considerable attention, as both a rhetorical statement and a distance from the developments. Since the 1990s, the DRC conflict, which is centered in the resource-rich eastern provinces, has killed and dislocated millions of people. Symbolically important as it is, the Washington Accord doesn’t involve all the actors fueling the violence. Most dramatically, the rebel group M23, widely suspected of being backed by Rwanda, is outside the agreement and continues to dominate large towns and corridors in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces.
Persistent violence undermining prospects for peace
The result of the accords was that there was no M23 representation in the negotiations. Then in mid-2025, the group escalated its attacks, further strengthening its grip on areas near Goma and Bukavu. In July 2025 alone Human Rights Watch documented at least 140 civilians killed in reprisal attacks in North Kivu. The group’s tenacity reflects the boundaries of high-level diplomacy that keeps key non-state actors out of the conversation.
Though the official policy of Kigali was stability by neutralisation of groups like the FDLR, the Congolese government has accused Rwanda of continuing to provide logistical and intelligence support to M23. These competing narratives make enforcement of the Washington Accord a challenge and also raise questions about its long-term viability.
Displacement and humanitarian pressures
Increased violence and instability keeps people displaced in eastern Congo More than 6.9 million Congolese are internally displaced, many without access to proper shelter, food or healthcare. The World Food Programme (WFP) in August 2025 warned that almost one in three people in the eastern Congo are at crisis-level food insecurity. Medical access continues to be dangerously restricted with insecurity limiting the delivery of aid organisations.
Local CSOs have demanded a more comprehensive peace agenda that takes into consideration communities’ realities on the ground. The Anglican Archbishop of Kinshasa called the deal “extractivism under the guise of peace” and called on international actors to recognize the disconnect between elite-focused settlement agreements and the needs of the average Congolese citizen.
Geostrategic and economic undercurrents
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s mineral resources are at the heart of global supply chains for cobalt, lithium, tantalum, and copper, all of which are critical inputs for batteries, smartphones, and AI infrastructure. The geostrategic importance of eastern Congo’s mines has increased in recent years, most prominently as Western governments are in search of alternatives to Chinese sources. The Trump administration, in developing the Washington Accord, has emphasized economic cooperation and has committed to helping develop a “responsible minerals corridor” with US technology and logistical partners.
Critics claim that making the peace process dependent on the access to minerals puts corporate interests above the security of people. The confidentiality of commercial terms hidden within the deal has sent shockwaves up and down the walls of the Congolese parliamentarians as well as international pundits. The main reason that many are concerned that the agreement will allow continued exploitation in the name of stability is that in many instances mining corporations are joined by private security companies.
US and regional diplomacy recalibrated
The deal is in keeping with Washington’s overall recalibration in central Africa. By brokering the deal, Trump wanted to reinstate US diplomatic relevance in an area of the world where the influence of China, France and the Gulf has increased. The deal also places the US as an intermediary in Rwandan-DRC relations–two countries with a history of conflict and an inconsistent record of cooperation.
However, the ceasefire is a delicate one and conflict could resurge to spoil the US legitimacy as a mediator of peace. If violence does not stop or does not decrease, then the agreement may come to be remembered as a political move of convenience rather than as a serious initiative for reconciliation.
The role of regional and international actors
Both the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) welcomed the Washington Accord but warned that it should be based on broader disarmament, reintegration of former fighters and efforts to reintegrate communities. The AU has also deployed monitors into the field to track adherence, and the UN Stabilization Mission in the Congo (MONUSCO), which began its draw-down in 2024, has been put back under new pressure to remain in some flashpoint regions in order to prevent massacres and safeguard civilians.
As a result of these initiatives, leaders from Angola, Uganda and South Sudan have proposed to mediate parallel discussions to involve M23 and local armed groups. This follows a greater acknowledgement of the need for sustainable peace to include all actors, and to deal with grievances related to land, identity and political representation.
Civil society perspectives
Local groups complain of being shut out of peace talks. Clergymen and activists in Goma and Ituri ridiculed the Washington Accord for its neglect of grassroots issues and its focus on geopolitical narratives from the outside world. Although the Executive Agreements outline a roadmap toward a post-extraction scenario, issues of justice, economic compensation to communities impacted by mining and restoration of land grants are not part of the current framework in the Agreement.
This person has spoken on the topic, highlighting how peace in Congo remains elusive without addressing both security and economic justice comprehensively:
His remarks echo the broader concern that declarations of peace can mask ongoing suffering and entrenched inequality if deeper structural challenges are not confronted.
Navigating the path from diplomacy to durable peace
The Trump Congo peace deal 2025 represents a moment of diplomatic visibility rather than resolution. While the Washington Accord provides a basis for the reduction of hostilities between the country’s militaries, its lack of means to neutralise non-state actors and its failure to tackle the entire range of drivers of conflict seriously constrain its transformative capacity.
For peace to endure actors must move beyond top-down structures. These are inclusive dialogue with rebel forces, investments in social services and infrastructure, accountability under law for war crimes and serious engagement of civil society. Only by embracing these factors is the DRC likely to have any chance of escaping the patterns of violence that have wracked its eastern provinces for decades.
The world will have to choose between accepting a symbolic token of progress or engaging with the long and hard effort of building a just and secure future for Congo’s multiculturalism. When the limelight shifts away from the headline-grabbing deal, the measure of peace is not in ink on paper but in security and dignity for the people who remain in the crosshairs on the ground.
