Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which military conflicts were active when Donald Trump became president and what happened to each under his administration?
Executive summary
When Donald Trump first became president (January 2017), the United States was involved in ongoing conflicts including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the campaign against ISIS, the Saudi-led war in Yemen (where the U.S. provided varying support), and involvement in Syria’s civil war; Trump’s record combined withdrawals, escalations in covert and air campaigns, and selective strikes rather than initiation of new full-scale wars [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and expert commentary disagree sharply on whether his actions reduced U.S. involvement in “endless wars” or instead broadened and intensified military tools like strikes and drone operations [1] [4] [3].
1. The baseline Trump inherited: messy, overlapping conflicts
When Trump took office, U.S. forces were still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, the anti-ISIS campaign continued in Syria and Iraq, Yemen was the site of a Saudi-led war supported by the U.S., and Syria’s civil war remained active — a complex set of engagements rather than a single theatre of war [2] [1] [3]. PBS and other outlets emphasized that these were ongoing conflicts during his presidency rather than new wars started by him [5].
2. Troop withdrawals and the “endless wars” messaging
Trump campaigned as the candidate who would end “endless wars” and pursued withdrawals or drawdowns in places like Syria and — rhetorically and in policy moves — Afghanistan and Iraq; analysts note he began to wind down deployments and publicly pushed for troop reductions [1] [2]. However, fact-checkers and reporting caution that withdrawals were partial and often followed by other forms of engagement, and that removing troops did not equate to ending the conflicts themselves [1] [4].
3. Persistent and expanded use of strikes, drones, and special operations
Multiple analysts and investigations report that while Trump reduced some ground footprints, his administration increased reliance on air power, strikes and counterterrorism raids — for example high numbers of drone strikes and special operations in the Middle East and Africa — which critics say intensified violence even as conventional deployments shrank [3] [4] [6]. This is a central point of disagreement: the administration framed these tools as precise and effective, while critics called them escalation without political solutions [3] [4].
4. Syria: limited strikes, but continued involvement
Trump ordered high-profile strikes in Syria (for chemical-weapons responses) and moved to reduce U.S. ground presence, actions described by think tanks and the White House as both punitive and a step toward disengagement; yet commentators stress that U.S. military action continued to shape the conflict [1] [7]. Analysts differ on whether strikes served deterrence or simply perpetuated intermittent U.S. involvement [1] [8].
5. Yemen and U.S. support for partners
Observers document that the Trump administration continued and in some ways expanded U.S. support to Saudi- and UAE-led operations in Yemen (including arms and logistics), even as it sought to limit ground troop commitments — a continuity that critics say sustained the war’s humanitarian toll [3] [4]. Responsible Statecraft and other critics highlight vetoes and policy choices that maintained U.S. complicity [4].
6. Iran and the broader regional balance
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, tightened sanctions, and adopted a confrontational stance that allies and rivals warned could escalate regional tensions; some reporting ties his posture to later flare-ups between Iran and regional actors [3] [9]. Supporters argue sanctions and pressure were tools to deter aggression; critics argue the withdrawal increased risk and unpredictability [3] [9].
7. The big debate: “No new wars” vs. “not an anti‑war presidency”
Supporters point to the absence of a new large-scale U.S. war as evidence Trump kept the country out of fresh protracted conflicts; outlets like Scripps and Reuters note no new full-scale wars began on his watch [10] [11]. Opponents counter that Trump’s presidency was not genuinely anti-war because he escalated aerial campaigns, backed partner interventions, and brought the U.S. to several near‑conflict moments — a view articulated by Foreign Policy, Responsible Statecraft and others [3] [4].
8. What the sources don’t settle (limitations and open questions)
Available sources disagree on causal credit for conflict de‑escalations and on how to count “ending” a war versus changing tactics; they also offer competing narratives about whether reduced troop levels represent peace or strategic retrenchment [1] [4] [12]. Sources do not provide a single authoritative tally of every conflict’s outcome under Trump; instead they offer contested assessments and empirical measures (strike counts, troop levels) that point in different directions [3] [4].
Conclusion: Trump’s early presidency did not invent new major wars, but it reshaped American military engagement — withdrawing some troops while expanding strikes, drone use and partner support — producing sharply different judgments about whether U.S. involvement decreased or was merely transformed [1] [3] [4].