Sudan Islamist official blames military for U.S. terror designations

March 17 2026 (KHARTOUM) – A senior official from Sudan’s Popular Congress Party (PCP) on Tuesday attributed the U.S. State Department’s recent terror designations of Sudanese Islamist groups to the “irresponsible” actions of the country’s military-led government.

Mohamed Badr al-Din Hamid, the PCP’s deputy secretary-general, said the ruling authorities’ conduct had exacerbated the conflict and led to the country’s international isolation.

The U.S. administration recently designated the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Movement, and the Al-Baraa bin Malik Brigade as terrorist organizations. The latter is a prominent militia fighting alongside the regular army against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Washington has intensified its use of sanctions and designations against entities linked to the former regime of Omar al-Bashir, citing involvement in human rights violations and the obstruction of a ceasefire. The U.S. Treasury stated these measures aim to disrupt the financial networks fueling the conflict.

Hamid told Sudan Tribune that the war now poses a direct threat to regional and international security. He criticized the military’s leadership for attempting to cling to power through what he described as a “failed” coup in 2021 before igniting an “absurd” war.

The official represents a faction of the PCP that remains at odds with other party members who have sided with the army. His group, led by Ali al-Haj, has consistently opposed the military’s intervention in politics and the current escalation.

Hamid argued that justice requires sanctions to be narrowly focused on the National Congress Party (NCP), which directly managed the former regime. He warned that broad designations against the wider Islamist movement could deepen political polarization among the Sudanese public.

Since breaking away from the Bashir regime, the PCP has sought to position itself as a civilian political force committed to democratic transition. Hamid reiterated the party’s support for the Framework Agreement as a means to achieve free elections and lasting peace.

He concluded by noting that such international decisions are frequently influenced by fluctuating diplomatic interests, comparing the current measures to previous U.S. designations in Syria, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asia.