Which of the Trump administration’s mediated agreements included formal, signed peace treaties versus temporary ceasefires?

1. DRC–Rwanda: the one often described as “signed” (but fragile in practice)

The Washington-mediated agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda was publicly signed on June 27 and later ratified on Dec. 4, a fact several outlets cite when listing a formally signed text brokered with U.S. involvement ^{[1] [6]}, yet reporting also stresses the deal’s weak implementation as fighting and M23 expansion continued, undercutting the practical significance of the signature ^{[6] [5]}.

2. Armenia–Azerbaijan: a White House declaration, not a binding treaty

The administration helped resuscitate a process culminating in a White House–hosted declaration and a framework for a strategic corridor—but analysts and think tanks emphasize that no comprehensive, legally binding peace treaty was signed in Washington, and contentious preconditions (such as Armenia’s constitutional changes) have stalled a final treaty signature ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. Israel–Hamas (Gaza): staged ceasefire with phases, not a settlement

What the White House touted in October as a major diplomatic win was framed and implemented as a phased ceasefire—an exchange of hostages for prisoners and an agreed pause in large-scale fighting—rather than a negotiated settlement resolving the underlying conflict; multiple reports note repeated violations and the absence of a durable political agreement to follow the ceasefire’s phases ^{[2] [8] [9]}.

4. Cambodia–Thailand and other border flare-ups: truce agreements that unraveled

Ceasefire or truce ceremonies—such as the Kuala Lumpur/White House–influenced accord on the Cambodia–Thailand border—were followed by renewed clashes, illustrating that these were temporary cessation of hostilities rather than full peace treaties capable of preventing recurrent violence ^{[3] [8]}.

5. India–Pakistan and similar cases: short-term halts and disputed U.S. credit

When India and Pakistan agreed to stop firing after intense exchanges, Washington and the White House claimed mediation credit in some accounts, but reporting shows the consensus characterization ought to be a temporary ceasefire or de-escalation rather than a signed, long-term peace treaty, and Indian officials sometimes disputed the degree of U.S. mediation ^{[4] [9]}.

6. Pattern and interpretation: signatures versus sustainability

Across the sample, independent analysts and outlets converge on a distinction between formal signatures and substantive, enforceable peace: a few documents were signed or initialed in U.S. presence (notably DRC–Rwanda), but many of Trump’s headline wins were ceasefires, memoranda of understanding, or political declarations that lacked the security guarantees, monitoring mechanisms, and local buy-in necessary for durable peace—leading experts to call several accords “prone to failure” or “temporary” ^{[6] [10] [5] [8]}.

7. Hidden incentives and political context behind rapid agreements

Commentators warn that rapid, public-facing signings served political purposes—projecting U.S. leadership and producing quick wins—while transactional elements (economic concessions, naming of corridors or institutes) sometimes supplanted core conflict resolution steps, which helps explain why some signed texts did not stop violence on the ground ^{[9] [6] [11]}.

8. Bottom line: signed treaties are rare; most were ceasefires or frameworks

The sober empirical takeaway from reporting is that formal, legally binding peace treaties mediated and fully implemented under the Trump administration are scarce—with DRC–Rwanda the clearest signed example—whereas the bulk of the administration’s touted “peace deals” were in practice temporary ceasefires, declarations, or unfinished frameworks that have frequently proven fragile or contested ^{[1] [6] [5] [8]}.