Did the Trump administration sign any treaties or agreements that ended wars?

1. What the administration actually signed — formal agreements, not capitulations

The record shows concrete signed documents: in 2020 the White House hosted economic-normalization agreements for Serbia and Kosovo that were presented as progress in a long-running dispute ^{[1] [2]}. Separately, the Trump team negotiated and signed the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban agreement, a formal deal intended to end direct U.S. combat operations and set withdrawal conditions ^[3]. Those are treaties/agreements that bear the trappings of diplomacy: text, signatories and public announcements ^{[3] [1]}.

2. Where public reporting notes important limits and caveats

Fact-checkers and news outlets emphasize limits: the Serbia–Kosovo 2020 accords normalized economic ties but did not resolve core territorial issues and the parties were not actively at war when they signed ^{[4] [5]}. Analysts say the Washington agreement was a symbolic step, not the end of violent interstate war ^[6]. The U.S.-Taliban deal reduced U.S. troop presence but critics argue it did not produce lasting peace in Afghanistan ^[3].

3. Claims that Trump “ended” multiple wars: reporting shows exaggeration

Multiple outlets examined presidential statements that Trump had “ended” six, seven or eight wars and found the claim overstated. Journalists at Axios, BBC, Sky and FactCheck.org report that some conflicts he cites predate his intervention, some involved only ceasefires or economic pacts, and some had no active battlefield fighting to be “ended” ^{[1] [4] [5] [7]}. Experts quoted by The Conversation and FactCheck.org say some agreements stalled fighting temporarily but did not fully resolve underlying conflicts ^{[6] [5]}.

4. High-profile later efforts that were not formal treaties and drew criticism

In 2025 the administration circulated a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine and promoted a “phase one” Gaza deal; reporting shows those were proposals and negotiated drafts rather than universally accepted, ratified treaties that ended wars ^{[8] [9]}. Associated Press and others reported that the Ukraine plan would have granted amnesty and legally binding terms in theory, but the drafts were controversial and criticized as favoring one side and as unlikely to be accepted by all parties ^{[8] [10]}.

5. Arms control and treaty withdrawals: the other side of the ledger

While touting peacemaking, the Trump administration also withdrew from or reduced participation in arms-control agreements—such as signaling departure from the Open Skies Treaty—moves that analysts say can increase tensions rather than end wars ^{[11] [12]}. Arms-control experts described administration actions as dismantling long-standing risk-reduction mechanisms ^[12].

6. Two competing narratives in the coverage: peacemaker vs. promoter of short-term deals

Supporters frame the White House efforts as bold peacemaking that produced real, if imperfect, results — getting parties to the table and signing documents ^{[1] [13]}. Critics and independent analysts argue many of those “victories” were normalization pacts between non-belligerent states, temporary ceasefires, or proposals favorable to U.S. leverage rather than durable settlements ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

7. Bottom line and what reporting does not say

Reporting confirms the administration signed notable agreements (Serbia–Kosovo 2020; U.S.-Taliban 2020) and drafted larger peace proposals (Ukraine, Gaza) but shows that claims of ending multiple active wars are often overstated or misleading ^{[1] [3] [5]}. Available sources do not mention any universally accepted, comprehensive treaty signed by the Trump administration that conclusively and permanently ended major ongoing wars like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Israel–Hamas hostilities ^{[8] [9] [10]}.