What was the US role in the Syrian Civil War during Trump's presidency?

1. A war framed by counter‑ISIS but punctuated with strikes on Assad

The U.S. entered Syria publicly in 2014 to fight ISIS under Operation Inherent Resolve and continued that mission into the Trump years; during Trump’s term the U.S. also carried out discrete strikes directly targeting Syrian government facilities — for example the April 2017 Shayrat strike and coalition strikes in April 2018 — marking a shift from purely counterterror operations to occasional punishment of Damascus for chemical attacks ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Support for local proxies: the SDF and the limits of covert programs

The U.S. worked with and supported Kurdish‑led Syrian Democratic Forces and other local partners to defeat ISIS, maintaining several hundred–thousand force-days in northern and eastern Syria until withdrawals; reporting notes that earlier covert CIA programs to arm rebels were being phased out under Trump even as the U.S. kept supporting the SDF as its principal on‑the‑ground partner ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Abrupt withdrawals and the downstream consequences

Trump’s announcements of troop pullbacks — at times abrupt and limited in scale — reduced U.S. presence in Syria and created openings for Turkey, Russia, and Iran to expand influence, a concern emphasized by Brookings analysts who argued U.S. exit could embolden Iran and complicate Turkey‑Kurdish dynamics ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

4. Diplomacy, sanctions and a later policy reversal on sanctions relief (reporting through 2025)

During and after the Trump presidency reporting shows an evolution in U.S. posture toward Damascus: later reporting documents meetings at the White House and moves to lift or waive some sanctions on Syria in 2025 after a new Syrian leadership emerged — material that reflects sharp policy shifts and controversy over rewarding former militants turned leaders ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}. Available sources do not mention specific Trump‑era congressional votes repealing the Caesar Act; reporting instead documents executive actions and debate ^{[7] [10]}.

5. Competing assessments inside U.S. policy circles

Think‑tank and congressional summaries show mixed views of Trump’s Syria policy: some praise tactical successes against ISIS and attempts to reposition Syria diplomatically, while others warn that reduced military engagement surrendered leverage to Russia and Iran and left key allies — especially the Kurds — vulnerable to Turkish action ^{[3] [11] [4]}.

6. The “open‑ended” presence claim and stated objectives

At moments the Trump administration signaled both plans to withdraw and intentions to maintain a persistent footprint to counter Iranian influence and press for political outcomes in Syria; this tension — between withdrawal rhetoric and declarations of sustained objectives — is reflected in contemporaneous reporting and timeline summaries ^{[6] [1] [4]}.

7. Media and investigative accounts that question partner selection and long‑term strategy

Major outlets and detailed features examined the risks of U.S. engagement with unconventional partners and the limits of counterterrorism as a stabilizing strategy. Some reporting in later years highlights controversial engagements with former militants once considered terrorists, underscoring debates about whether counterterror cooperation can produce a stable political transition ^{[12] [13] [14]}.

8. Bottom line for readers: a policy of mixed instruments with contested outcomes

The Trump administration combined kinetic strikes, partnership with local forces, limited nation‑building restraint, and varying uses of sanctions and diplomacy; analysts warn these mixed instruments produced short‑term counterterror gains but created long‑term strategic tradeoffs that advantaged regional rivals and complicated U.S. credibility with partners ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

Limitations and caveats: this analysis relies on the supplied timeline, think‑tank and news reporting in the search results. Specific legislative actions, internal National Security Council deliberations, and classified operational details are not covered in the provided sources; those items are not found in current reporting here (not found in current reporting).