Skip to the story
All stories

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

Published Updated
Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons

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

Left 33%(6)Centre 11%(2)Right 56%(10)

Percentages are shares of the 18 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 20 of the 38 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

38 sources · methodology

Missing from the left

Only 6 of the 18 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.

A reader who follows the left would not have seen this. We report the absence rather than explain it: outlets choose what to cover for many reasons, and we have no evidence about which one applies here.

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.

Coverage settled. We checked this 31 times and stopped on 11 Sept 2026, 17:00. The figures above are what it finished at.

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

6 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

2 rated outlets

We have not written our reading of the centre coverage of this story. The centre-rated outlets that ran it are listed below.

Right

10 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 18 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 33% are rated left, 11% are rated centre, 56% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 38. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons left or right?
Neither side dominates it. Of the 18 rated outlets on this story, 33% are rated left, 11% are rated centre, 56% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
Is the coverage of Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons biased?
Sudan army accused of developing chemical weapons is one event reported by 38 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?
38 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

38 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

6

Centre

2

Right

10
Show 2 more

Not rated

20
Show 12 more

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.

Sudan Chemical Weapons Allegations | MediaBias News