Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons
Documents suggest government forces produced chlorine-based munitions for use against rebels.
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons
Photograph: 연합뉴스-Yonhap News Agency (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Sudanese government forces allegedly developed and produced chemical weapons for approximately six months in 2024, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post and The New York Times.
- Evidence includes videos of alleged chemical bomb tests, a text message to an officer stating 'Your cooking,' and suggestions that chlorine for water purification was diverted for bomb manufacturing.
- The Washington Post estimated that Sudan may have stockpiled up to 290 chemical weapons.
- Sudanese forces have denied the allegations, with The New York Times reporting threats of legal action.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 9 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 7 of the 16 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
50/100
Craft
45/100
Hype
40/100
16 sources · methodology
Thin on the left so far
Only 2 of the 9 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
Documents and other materials suggest that Sudanese government forces developed and used chemical weapons against rebel groups. The Washington Post and The New York Times reported these findings, citing evidence obtained from Middle Eastern intelligence agencies and other sources. These materials reportedly include videos of alleged chemical bomb tests and communications indicating the production and use of such weapons.
The documents suggest the Sudanese army developed and produced chemical weapons for about six months in 2024. The Washington Post estimated that Sudan may have stockpiled up to 290 chemical weapons. Evidence cited includes videos of alleged chemical bomb tests and a text message sent to an officer involved in airstrikes that read, 'Your cooking.' Chlorine intended for water purification was allegedly diverted for use in bomb manufacturing.
Disputed claims
The Sudanese government has denied the allegations. The New York Times reported that Sudanese forces threatened legal action if the reports were published. The Washington Post noted that while accusations of chemical weapons use in Sudan have been made before, concrete evidence was previously scarce.
What the coverage left out
None of the centre-rated reports mentioned the allegations of chemical weapons development or use by Sudanese forces, as no centre-rated outlet covered this story. The right-rated reports did not include direct denials or threats of legal action from the Sudanese government, which were reported by The New York Times.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 5 times, most recently on 6 Sept 2026, 11:00, and will add the sides that appear.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
2 rated outlets
- The two left-rated reports focused on the evidence presented by The Washington Post and The New York Times. Both The Washington Post and Ynet News highlighted the existence of documents, videos, and communications suggesting the Sudanese army's development and production of chemical weapons. Ynet News specifically mentioned that a Middle Eastern intelligence agency gathered this evidence, which described a secret military unit manufacturing chlorine-based ammunition for use against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
Centre
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated centre has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Right
7 rated outlets
- Seven right-rated reports led with the claim that the Sudanese government developed and stockpiled chemical weapons, often citing The Washington Post. Many of these reports, including those from [your]NEWS, news-pravda.com, BNR Nieuwsradio, Newsmax, Emirates24|7, and Interfax.ru, mentioned the estimated stockpile size of up to 290 chemical weapons. Several also highlighted the alleged diversion of chlorine for water purification and the testing of chemical bombs in the desert. The reports from BNR Nieuwsradio and Newsmax specifically mentioned the concealment of evidence from international inspectors.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons?
- Of the 9 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 22% are rated left, 0% are rated centre, 78% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 16. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 9 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons biased?
- Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons is one event reported by 16 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated left had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons?
- 16 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What evidence suggests Sudan developed chemical weapons?
- Evidence includes documents, videos of alleged bomb tests, and communications suggesting the diversion of chlorine for bomb manufacturing. The Washington Post estimated up to 290 chemical weapons may have been stockpiled.
- What is Sudan's government's response to these allegations?
- The Sudanese government has denied the allegations. The New York Times reported that Sudanese forces threatened legal action against publications reporting on the matter.
- Which outlets reported on the alleged chemical weapons development?
- Reports were carried by outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Yonhap News Agency, Ynet News, [your]NEWS, Newsmax, and others, with coverage split between left and right-rated publications.
Read it at the source
16 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
2- Report: Middle East intelligence agency gathered evidence that Sudan's army developed and produced chemical weapons (opens Ynet News in a new tab)
- Trove of documents reveals alleged chemical weapons stockpile in Sudan (opens The Washington Post in a new tab)
The Washington Post — is The Washington Post biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Right
7- Leaked Files Allege Sudan Built and Concealed Stockpile of Nearly 300 Chlorine Weapons (opens [your]NEWS in a new tab)
[your]NEWS — is [your]NEWS biased? Our profile of this outlet
- The Washington Post claimed that the Sudanese government allegedly has secret chemical weapons stockpiles (opens news-pravda.com in a new tab)
news-pravda.com — is news-pravda.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- WP: Sudan Builds Secret Chemical Weapons Program with Diverted UN Water Aid (opens BNR Nieuwsradio in a new tab)
BNR Nieuwsradio — is BNR Nieuwsradio biased? Our profile of this outlet
- "Government Forces Developed Chemical Weapons to Attack Rebels in War-Torn Sudan" (opens 연합뉴스-Yonhap News Agency in a new tab)
연합뉴스-Yonhap News Agency — is 연합뉴스-Yonhap News Agency biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Documents Point to Secret Sudan Chemical Weapons Stockpile (opens Newsmax in a new tab)
- Secret dossier bolsters evidence of Sudan military chemical weapons use (opens Emirates24|7 in a new tab)
Emirates24|7 — is Emirates24|7 biased? Our profile of this outlet
- WP Reported that the Sudanese Military Had Clandestinely Established an Arsenal of Chemical Weapons (opens Interfax.ru in a new tab)
Interfax.ru — is Interfax.ru biased? Our profile of this outlet
Not rated
7- Trove of documents reveals alleged chemical weapons stockpile in Sudan (opens Martin Plaut in a new tab)
Martin Plaut
- Washington Post: Documents Discover Secret Arsenal of Chemical Weapons in Sudan (opens Agenparl in a new tab)
- WP Claims Sudanese Government Has Secret Chemical Weapons Stockpiles (opens Apa in a new tab)
- Sudan War window... New Documents Bringing Chemical Weapons Back to the Front. (opens nafeza2world.com in a new tab)
nafeza2world.com — is nafeza2world.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Leaked files point to Sudan army chemical weapons programme (opens thesudantimes.com in a new tab)
thesudantimes.com — is thesudantimes.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Sudan Chemical Weapons Allegations: 2026 (opens The World Reviews in a new tab)
The World Reviews — is The World Reviews biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Sudan Chemical Weapons Allegations OPCW Reports (opens The Arab Posts in a new tab)
The Arab Posts — is The Arab Posts biased? Our profile of this outlet
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.


