The United States has pulled its final troops out of Iraq, closing a military chapter that began more than two decades ago with the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. The last American forces departed as the region remained unsettled by an ongoing war involving Iran, leaving Iraq's long-term defense posture facing fresh uncertainty.
The withdrawal marks the end of a U.S. military presence that stretched back to 2003, when a U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq and overthrew Hussein's government. What followed was a lengthy and costly occupation, an insurgency, and years of shifting missions as Washington repeatedly adjusted its troop levels and objectives. The final exit, reported by NPR's Up First newsletter, signals that the American combat and advisory role in the country has now formally concluded. In Baghdad, Iraqi officials declared the day a national occasion marking the completion of the pullout.
The timing of the departure adds a layer of complexity. The withdrawal unfolded amid a broader war involving Iran, a conflict that has destabilized parts of the region and raised questions about whether Iraq can secure its borders and airspace without a substantial foreign military footprint. For years, U.S. forces provided training, intelligence support, and logistical backing to Iraqi units. Removing that presence leaves a gap that Baghdad will now have to fill largely on its own, or with the help of other partners.
Analysts have long debated what a full American exit would mean for Iraq's internal stability. Supporters of withdrawal argue that a sovereign Iraq should not host foreign troops indefinitely, and that the enduring U.S. presence had become a political liability for Iraqi leaders. Critics counter that a premature departure could open space for insurgent groups, militia factions, and regional powers to expand their influence. With the Iran war still active, those concerns are likely to intensify in the weeks ahead.
The withdrawal also carries symbolic weight. More than two decades after the invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, the United States is leaving behind a country that has been transformed — in some ways strengthened, in others deeply fractured. Iraq has held repeated national elections and rebuilt parts of its economy, but it still struggles with corruption, sectarian tensions, and the challenge of integrating armed groups into a unified national security force. The end of the U.S. mission will test whether those institutions can hold without external scaffolding.
Beyond Iraq, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant, if provisional, victory on immigration policy. The justices sided with the White House for now on the practice of third-country deportations, reviving a policy that allows officials to remove migrants to nations other than their own. The decision is not a final ruling on the merits but clears the way for the administration to continue the practice while litigation proceeds.
Third-country deportations have been a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration enforcement. The approach permits authorities to send individuals to a country that is neither their place of origin nor the United States, often under agreements negotiated with receiving governments. Human rights advocates warn that such removals can place vulnerable people at serious risk if they lack ties or legal protections in the destination country. Administration officials, by contrast, frame the policy as a lawful and necessary tool for managing border crossings and enforcing removal orders.
The court's action reflects the increasingly prominent role the judiciary is playing in shaping immigration enforcement. With Congress deadlocked on comprehensive reform, much of the policy landscape has been defined by executive actions, litigation, and emergency appeals. Each ruling can shift how quickly and where removals can be carried out, affecting thousands of people and the agencies that process their cases.
The two developments — the Iraq withdrawal and the deportation ruling — were the lead items in NPR's Up First briefing, which gathers the morning's most important stories in a single roundup. The newsletter also flagged coverage of an AI summit involving the Trump administration, underscoring how technology policy has moved to the center of Washington's agenda. Together, the stories illustrate a moment in which long-running foreign commitments and domestic enforcement battles are converging.
For Iraq, the coming months will reveal whether the withdrawal produces calm or new friction. Iraqi security forces have grown considerably since the peak of the insurgency, but they have relied on American air support, surveillance, and advisory expertise for years. Neighboring powers are certain to watch closely for signs of a power vacuum. Any resurgence of extremist activity would immediately raise the question of whether the exit was premature.
For the Trump administration, the court's decision offers temporary momentum on an issue that remains a top priority for its political base. Officials are expected to press ahead with removal operations while the legal challenges continue, and further appeals are likely. The case could eventually return to the justices for a definitive ruling on whether the policy satisfies statutory and constitutional requirements.
Both stories share a common thread: the unwinding of arrangements that once seemed permanent. The U.S. military footprint in Iraq was for years treated as a fixture of the regional order, and the legal framework for third-country deportations was assumed by many to be settled. Each is now in flux, with consequences that will unfold well beyond the day's headlines.
The decisions also highlight the limits of unilateral action. A withdrawal can end a military mission but cannot guarantee stability. A court order can revive a policy but cannot resolve the underlying legal dispute. In each case, the harder questions — about Iraq's future security and about how far immigration enforcement can reach — remain unanswered and will likely shape policy debates for months to come.
For now, the immediate facts are clear. American troops are out of Iraq, and the Trump administration can continue third-country deportations while the courts weigh the issue. What happens next depends on institutions and actors far beyond Washington, from Iraqi commanders to immigration judges to the governments that agree, or refuse, to accept removed migrants. Those dynamics will determine whether these developments mark the end of one chapter or the beginning of another.
(0)