Which of the ceasefires brokered in 2025 have held for more than six months, and what monitors verify that?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No ceasefire brokered in 2025 can be shown, on the basis of the provided reporting, to have held for more than six months as of 30 December 2025; the best-documented 2025 agreements — notably the January Gaza truce and later Gaza arrangements — were monitored and reported by UN bodies and humanitarian agencies but only covered weeks to a few months of calm [1] [2], and other 2025 pacts such as the Cambodia–Thailand Christmas truce came into force at the end of December 2025 and therefore cannot yet be six months old [3].
1. The January 2025 Gaza ceasefire: durable for weeks, monitored by UN humanitarian and diplomatic mechanisms
The January 2025 Gaza arrangement began on 19 January 2025 and produced a phase of humanitarian access and hostage-prisoner exchanges that is documented as running through early March 2025 — Phase One is explicitly covered as 19 January to 1 March 2025 in the UN OCHA situational report, which records measurable humanitarian gains during that interval such as rises in water production and food deliveries [1]; the deal was negotiated in a multi-stage framework with a Cairo-based verification mechanism including Israel, Hamas and mediators (United States, Egypt, Qatar) described by American University’s analysis [4].
2. Who counted and certified the Gaza lull — and why it’s not a six‑month truce
UN agencies and humanitarian partners provided the most concrete independent reporting on the January pause: OCHA’s Phase One report documents daily supply flows and service restoration metrics during the six‑week window and thus serves as the primary monitor for that interval [1]; the UN Secretariat and Security Council subsequently debated consolidation measures and the possible deployment of international forces as part of later phases [2], but those diplomatic and UN statements confirm that the January arrangements were time‑bounded and do not support a claim of six months’ continuous quiet [2] [1].
3. Other 2025 ceasefires referenced in reporting: short or too recent to meet the six‑month threshold
Reporting points to further 2025 ceasefire efforts — for example, an October 2025 Gaza ceasefire and a December 27, 2025 Cambodia–Thailand truce — yet the October Gaza agreement had only weeks of reporting by November 2025 (NPR and UN coverage) and the Cambodia–Thailand agreement came into force on 27 December 2025, explicitly described as “appeared to be holding” from that date, meaning neither can be demonstrated to have exceeded six months within the calendar year 2025 [5] [3] [2].
4. Monitoring bodies and their credibility: UN teams, OHCHR, and on‑the‑ground verification mechanisms
The principal verifiers cited in the sources are UN entities — OCHA for humanitarian access and service metrics in Gaza [1], the UN Secretariat and Security Council for political consolidation and the possibility of international forces [2], UNIFIL as the traditional Lebanon ceasefire monitor discussed in Security Council briefings [6], and OHCHR which documents violations and civilian casualties and therefore assesses compliance with cessations of hostilities [7]; academic and mediator descriptions (e.g., the Cairo verification group) are listed as part of verification architectures but are reported to have overseen short, staged implementations rather than open‑ended peace [4].
5. Conflicting claims and why independent monitoring matters
Political claims that a single leader “stopped six wars” or permanently ended multiple conflicts in 2025 are treated skeptically by fact‑checking and reporting because temporary, brokered pauses do not equal durable cessation of hostilities; PolitiFact notes scant evidence that several high‑profile claims translated into lasting peace and stresses the difference between short‑term truces and long‑term conflict resolution [8]. Independent, continuous monitoring — the kind UN agencies and humanitarians provided for January’s Gaza phase [1] and OHCHR/UNIFIL have attempted in Lebanon and other theaters [7] [6] — is the evidentiary standard needed to substantiate any claim of a six‑month‑plus hold, and the available sources do not document any 2025 brokered ceasefire meeting that standard.