Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What trump said about starting a war
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to avoid “endless” wars while also making forceful public comments that suggest willingness to order strikes without formal declarations of war; his inauguration and campaign rhetoric emphasized ending wars and preventing World War III, yet actions and statements in 2025 show direct military strikes (e.g., on Iran) and comments about not seeking congressional declarations for operations [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention every specific phrase the public attributes to him, but reporting documents a clear tension between his “no new wars” branding and aggressive operational rhetoric [1] [3] [2].
1. Trump’s stated policy: “No new wars” and ending forever wars
Trump’s public messaging as a candidate and early in his presidency stressed ending “endless” or “forever” wars and presenting himself as a peacemaker who would “prevent world war three,” language that framed war as a policy failure to avoid rather than a goal to seek [1] [2]. Responsible Statecraft noted that in his inauguration he framed war as “a dead end” for his vision of a “golden age,” underscoring that his formal rhetoric often positions conflict avoidance as central to his foreign policy appeal [4].
2. Contradictory actions: strikes and warnings to Iran and others
Despite anti‑interventionist rhetoric, reporting shows the U.S. under Trump conducted direct strikes against Iranian targets in mid‑2025, with Trump publicly warning there were “many targets left” and signaling willingness to continue military pressure if peace did not follow; AP and CNBC coverage highlight these strikes as testing his prior “forever wars” rhetoric [1] [2]. These actions illustrate a practical shift from campaign slogans to kinetic measures when administration officials judged threats escalatory [1] [2].
3. Public statements minimizing need for Congress on use of force
Trump has made blunt statements that he would not necessarily seek a congressional declaration of war for some operations, telling reporters in October 2025 that “I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war… I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country,” comments documented by Reuters and The Guardian that triggered concern about executive use of military force without formal authorization [3] [5]. Reuters reported Trump said his administration planned to brief Congress on operations against cartels but explicitly stated he did not think a declaration of war was necessary [3].
4. Messaging that mixes restraint language with combative lines
Trump’s public repertoire includes both peace‑oriented lines and combative quips — campaign era quotes compiled online emphasize “No New Wars,” while other venues and speeches include aggressive formulations about “winning” or using force decisively [6] [7] [8]. This blend makes it difficult to reduce his position to a single, consistent doctrine: he presents restraint as principle but reserves the right to rapid, forceful action when he perceives national interests threatened [1] [6].
5. Domestic political fallout and intra‑party dissent
Hardline uses of force and the perception of “starting wars” have stirred dissent even among Republicans and some Trump supporters; reporting records criticism from figures who say overseas military action departs from “America First” instincts and campaign promises, suggesting political costs to aggressive operations [9]. The New York Times quoted Representative Thomas Massie criticizing what he framed as overseas wars and budgetary impacts, showing a domestic backlash to perceived departures from earlier promises [9].
6. Where reporting is limited and what’s not covered
Available sources document specific strikes (Iran), public comments about not needing congressional declarations for certain strikes (Venezuela/cartels), and rhetorical claims about preventing world war, but they do not provide a unified legal or interagency timeline explaining how each operational decision was authorized or which internal deliberations produced the statements — that detail is not found in current reporting [1] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention every private conversation or classified memorandum that may have guided the decisions [1] [3] [2].
7. Bottom line: a mixed record that blends vows of peace with forceful operational choices
The factual record in reporting shows Trump’s public commitments to avoid new and endless wars coexisting with public orders and actions that use military force and assert the executive’s willingness to act without formal war declarations; this duality is central to understanding “what Trump said about starting a war” — his words emphasize preventing wars, but his actions and blunt remarks signal readiness to employ force when he deems it necessary [1] [2] [3]. Readers should weigh both the rhetorical promises and the operational record when assessing his approach to war.