Did trump call for a cancelation of the Afghanistan withdrawal
Executive summary
Donald Trump criticized the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as a “horrendous airlift” and has repeatedly framed the evacuation as a political and security failure; reporting shows he negotiated the 2020 U.S.–Taliban deal that set a withdrawal timetable and his aides later pursued accountability for the 2021 exit [1] [2] [3]. Recent actions from his administration — halting Afghan visa processing and pausing some resettlement programs — are presented in coverage as responses to crime and security concerns tied to arrivals after that withdrawal [4] [5] [6].
1. Trump’s public language: blame and calls to pause migration
Trump has publicly attacked the Kabul evacuation and the subsequent arrivals, posting about “the horrendous airlift from Afghanistan” and announcing sweeping migration pauses — including a stated intent to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries” in one account — and ordered reviews or halts on Afghan visa and green-card processing after a high-profile shooting [1] [4] [5]. These statements amount to calls to stop or sharply curtail flows tied to the withdrawal-era arrivals rather than to undo the historical act of withdrawal itself [1] [5].
2. What he actually negotiated in 2020: a withdrawal timetable
Reporting and background sources show the Trump administration negotiated the 2020 U.S.–Taliban agreement that stipulated a timetable for U.S. forces to leave, including a potential complete withdrawal by May 1, 2021, if Taliban conditions were met [2]. This means the withdrawal’s diplomatic framework was a product of his administration’s deal-making, even as he later criticized the way the exit unfolded in 2021 [2] [3].
3. Calls for accountability and possible punitive actions
Post-withdrawal, Trump and his team pushed for accountability and even explored legal or military repercussions for officials they deemed responsible; one report describes plans by Trump’s transition team to consider court-martial or prosecutions for military leaders involved in the 2021 withdrawal [7]. Independent U.S. reviews also placed significant blame for the chaotic exit on decisions made during the Trump administration, a point used by competing political actors to assign responsibility [3].
4. Policy moves aimed at Afghan arrivals and resettlement
Since returning to office, Trump’s administration has moved to curtail programs tied to Afghan resettlement: it suspended or proposed ending relocation offices and programs (Operation Enduring Welcome/CARE Office) and in late-2025 halted Afghan visa processing and ordered reviews of green cards from multiple countries after a shooting incident involving an Afghan national [6] [4] [5]. Coverage frames these steps as reactive security measures but also as continuations of a broader immigration crackdown [8] [9].
5. Competing interpretations in the press and politics
Different outlets emphasize different lines of responsibility. Some coverage underscores that Trump’s 2020 deal set the withdrawal in motion and points to those earlier decisions as constraining Biden’s later choices [2] [3]. Other reporting highlights Trump’s rhetorical and policy attacks on post-withdrawal arrivals, treating his visa suspensions and program cuts as punitive responses to crimes or perceived vetting failures [5] [4]. Both strands appear in the record and feed partisan dispute [3] [1].
6. What the sources do not say or cannot confirm
Available sources do not mention Trump explicitly calling for a retroactive “cancellation” of the 2021 troop withdrawal as a practical policy option; the record shows he criticized the evacuation and sought to limit migration stemming from it, while he originally negotiated the withdrawal timetable in 2020 [1] [2]. Sources provided do not document any successful effort to reverse the withdrawal itself or to reinstate troops in Afghanistan after 2021 (not found in current reporting).
7. Why this matters: policy, politics and the victims
The debate mixes legal, security and political claims: critics stress that the withdrawal’s execution cost lives and left equipment behind, while supporters of ending long deployments argue continuing U.S. military presence was unsustainable; meanwhile, actions that cut resettlement programs affect thousands of Afghans who assisted U.S. forces and are now in limbo [10] [3] [5]. Journalistic coverage signals that policy decisions dating to 2020 and rhetoric in 2025 shape real outcomes for refugees and former allies [2] [6] [5].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied reporting. Competing claims are drawn from those pieces; other primary documents, direct quotes beyond excerpts, or later developments are not available here.