The Pentagon confirmed on Wednesday that the final contingent of American troops has departed Iraq, formally ending a military presence that began with the 2003 invasion and stretched across more than two decades of conflict, occupation, and counterinsurgency operations. The withdrawal marks a definitive close to one of the longest and most politically contentious military engagements in modern U.S. history, leaving behind a security vacuum that regional analysts warn could be filled by Iranian-aligned militias or a resurgent insurgency.
Iraq's government declared Wednesday a national holiday, calling it "Sovereignty Day," according to state media reports. Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani addressed the nation from Baghdad, describing the departure as the culmination of years of negotiations with Washington over the status of foreign forces. "Today, Iraq stands on its own feet, with our own security forces fully capable of defending the homeland," al-Sudani said in a televised address. He praised the "strategic partnership" between the two countries while emphasizing that no foreign combat troops remain on Iraqi soil.
The withdrawal comes amid an active regional war involving Iran, which has dramatically reshaped the security calculus for both Washington and Baghdad. U.S. officials have not disclosed the precise timing of the final convoy's departure, citing operational security, but military sources confirmed that equipment and personnel were airlifted from Ain al-Asad Air Base in Anbar province late Tuesday. The base had been a cornerstone of the American mission since 2003 and was repeatedly targeted by rocket and drone attacks in recent years.
For the United States, the exit represents a strategic pivot away from large-scale ground deployments in the Middle East. Defense analysts note that the Pentagon has increasingly favored over-the-horizon operations, relying on naval assets, aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and special operations forces stationed in neighboring countries. "This is not a retreat in the traditional sense, but a recalibration," said Jonathan Mercer, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The U.S. is betting that it can project power without a permanent footprint, and the coming months will test whether that bet holds."
That bet carries significant risk. Iraq's military, while vastly expanded and better equipped than in previous years, still relies heavily on American intelligence, logistics, and air support. Without those enablers, Iraqi commanders may struggle to conduct precision strikes against ISIS remnants in the Anbar desert or to counter well-armed militias that operate outside the formal chain of command. Several Iraqi officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed unease about the transition. "We have the will, but not all the tools," one colonel said. "The Americans took the tools with them."
Iran's influence in Baghdad is another critical variable. Tehran has cultivated deep ties with Shia political parties and paramilitary groups in Iraq for years, and the departure of U.S. forces removes a key counterweight. Some Iraqi lawmakers close to Iran have already called for the immediate expulsion of remaining American contractors and intelligence advisors. The White House has not ruled out retaining a small diplomatic security presence at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which is one of the largest in the world.
In Washington, the withdrawal drew swift reactions from both parties. Republican senators criticized the decision as premature, arguing that it cedes ground to Iran at a moment of heightened confrontation. "We are handing Tehran a victory it could not win on the battlefield," said Senator Lindsey Graham in a statement. Democratic leaders countered that the war had long ago lost public support and that Iraq's sovereignty must be respected. "Ending our involvement in Iraq is not a weakness. It is a recognition of reality," said Senator Jack Reed, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a temporary but significant victory on immigration policy, siding with the White House on the practice of third-country deportations. The ruling, issued late Tuesday, allows the administration to continue removing noncitizens to countries other than their own, provided that those nations agree to accept them. The case arose after lower courts blocked several deportation flights to third countries, citing inadequate assurances that migrants would not face persecution or torture.
The decision was procedural in nature, preserving the status quo while litigation continues, but it carries profound implications for tens of thousands of people currently in immigration detention. The administration has argued that third-country deportations are a vital tool for enforcing immigration law, particularly when the migrants' home countries refuse to accept them. "We will continue to remove individuals who have no legal right to remain in the United States," said a Justice Department spokesperson. "The Supreme Court's action allows us to proceed while the appeals process plays out."
Immigrant advocacy groups condemned the ruling, warning that it exposes vulnerable people to serious harm. "This is a green light for deporting people to places they have never been, where they may not speak the language and where they may face violence," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "We will continue to fight this policy in the courts." Legal scholars expect the case to return to the Supreme Court on the merits later this year, potentially resulting in a landmark ruling on executive authority over deportation.
The dual developments—the Iraq withdrawal and the Supreme Court immigration decision—underscore the Trump administration's broader foreign policy and domestic agenda as it navigates an active war involving Iran and a polarized electorate at home. Both moves are likely to feature prominently in upcoming congressional hearings and the 2026 midterm campaigns. For Iraq, the coming months will be a test of whether its security forces can hold together a fragile peace. For the United States, the question is whether a lighter footprint abroad can coexist with an uncompromising posture on immigration at home.
(0)