Which ongoing conflicts in 2017–2021 were reduced or escalated due to Trump administration policies?
Executive summary
The Trump administration (2017–2021) both reduced and escalated different armed conflicts and crises: it negotiated a conditional U.S. troop withdrawal that preceded the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan (signing a deal in Feb 2020 and U.S. withdrawal in 2021) [1], while simultaneously increasing U.S. military actions — including drone strikes and bombing campaigns — in other theaters and sustaining U.S. support for partners in wars like Yemen [2]. Coverage is uneven across conflicts; available sources describe major effects in Afghanistan, expanded air campaigns and arms support elsewhere, and mixed signals toward Ukraine, but do not provide a comprehensive, conflict-by-conflict causal accounting for every theater [1] [2] [3].
1. Afghanistan — Withdrawal deal that reduced U.S. presence but escalated the conflict’s outcome
The Trump administration negotiated a February 2020 agreement with the Taliban that set conditions for a full U.S. troop withdrawal, a policy that led to the complete U.S. pullout in 2021 and preceded the Taliban’s rapid retaking of Afghanistan in September 2021; analysts link the administration’s deal and drawdown directly to the collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government [1]. This illustrates a pattern where a policy that reduced U.S. military involvement abroad also coincided with a dramatic escalation in on-the-ground political and security consequences — i.e., the reassertion of Taliban control — even if sources do not assign sole blame to one action [1].
2. Yemen and allied campaigns — U.S. complicity and continued escalation through arms and vetoes
Advocates and analysts argue the administration “did nothing to end U.S. complicity” in the Saudi/UAE-led intervention in Yemen and, in fact, deepened involvement by overriding congressional pushes to limit arms flows and by sustaining support that contributed to civilian harm [2]. Responsible Statecraft’s reporting contends Trump escalated these inherited wars, increasing bombing and civilian casualties, and used presidential vetoes to block bipartisan efforts to curb U.S. participation [2]. Those sources present the Trump approach as worsening humanitarian outcomes even as the administration cast its actions as supporting allies and countering regional rivals [2].
3. Drone wars and air campaigns — expanded use of airpower and fewer restraints
Multiple assessments argue the Trump years saw an expansion of “deadly and unaccountable drone wars,” with more liberal use of strikes and bombing compared with prior restraint, contributing to higher civilian casualty rates in places like Africa and the Middle East [2]. The American Enterprise Institute notes that despite promises to end “endless wars,” Trump scaled up air operations while winding down some troop deployments [4] [2]. These sources portray a policy trade-off: fewer boots on the ground but greater reliance on remote, high-lethality options that critics say escalated harms to civilians [4] [2].
4. Syria, Iraq, Somalia — drawdowns paired with episodic escalation
Trump ordered drawdowns of U.S. forces from Syria, Iraq, and Somalia while also authorizing strikes (including the high-profile 2020 assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, noted in broader foreign policy summaries) and other military actions that risked new confrontations [5] [4]. The net effect described in sources is not a simple de-escalation: withdrawal decisions reduced U.S. footprint but decisions to strike and to pressure partners often increased regional volatility and prospects for renewed violence [4] [5].
5. Russia–Ukraine — mixed signals that could both check and embolden
Reporting indicates the administration sent inconsistent messages on Russia and Ukraine: early pressure on Europe to shoulder costs and some U.S. support, contrasted with later rhetoric that sometimes echoed Russian talking points and attacked Ukrainian leaders [3]. JustSecurity frames this as an internal strategic clash between “peace through strength” and “appeasement” tendencies; such mixed signals can simultaneously deter and invite aggression by creating uncertainty among allies and adversaries [3]. Available sources do not provide a definitive causal claim that Trump policy alone reduced or escalated the later Russian invasion dynamics [3].
6. How to read these patterns — policy trade-offs and political framing
Scholars and commentators emphasize that Trump’s foreign policy combined unilateral economic pressure, selective troop reductions, and increased use of airpower and leverage — producing contradictory outcomes: reduced U.S. footprint in some theaters but heightened violence or instability in local dynamics [4] [2]. Analysts caution against simplistic narratives: the same policy (withdrawal) can “reduce” U.S. involvement while “escalating” a local conflict’s severity; sources differ on whether those results were intended, negligent, or unavoidable [4] [2].
Limitations: reporting in the provided sources focuses on a set of high-profile theaters (Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, broader drone campaigns, and mixed messaging on Ukraine) and offers critique or defense depending on the outlet; they do not offer a complete, quantitative list of every conflict changed by Trump policies or a single causal model tying each escalation/reduction exclusively to U.S. actions [1] [2] [3].