The United States has pulled its final troops out of Iraq, closing a military chapter that stretched more than two decades past the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. The departure, confirmed in the Up First newsletter, comes at a moment when Washington is simultaneously managing a war with Iran, raising fresh questions about Baghdad's ability to defend itself without American boots on the ground.
Iraq declared the day of the withdrawal a national holiday, calling it "Sovereignty Day," according to the newsletter. The gesture reflects how deeply the American troop presence had become entangled in Iraqi politics, where calls for a full exit had grown louder after the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020. The holiday also signals the political capital Iraqi leaders believe they can extract from being the ones to formally end the U.S. military role.
Yet the timing is precarious. The withdrawal is unfolding "amid Iran war," the newsletter notes, meaning Iraq loses its most significant foreign military backstop just as regional hostilities are escalating. That raises the prospect that Iraqi forces, which have long relied on U.S. intelligence, logistics, and air support to counter ISIS remnants, could face new pressures on multiple fronts.
The 2003 invasion was launched by a U.S.-led coalition that dismantled Saddam's government and, in the process, touched off a violent insurgency. The conflict lasted years, cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and ultimately drew in Iranian-backed militias that remain inside Iraq's security architecture. That history explains why the withdrawal's finality carries as much symbolism as strategic weight: it marks the end of a mission that has defined U.S. force posture in the Middle East for a generation.
In Washington, the pullout is certain to be debated as part of a broader post-Iraq posture. The Pentagon has spent years shifting resources toward great-power competition while trying to maintain a counterterrorism footprint in the region. Without a foothold in Iraq, future operations against ISIS cells could depend more heavily on partners or on forces based elsewhere, such as in the Gulf or Jordan.
Separately, the Supreme Court has sided for now with the Trump administration on third-country deportations, reviving a policy that had been blocked in lower courts. The newsletter frames the decision as a significant win for the White House on immigration enforcement, one that could expand the government's ability to remove people to countries other than their own.
The legal fight over third-country deportations centers on whether the government can send individuals to nations that are not their country of origin, often under agreements intended to prevent torture or persecution. Critics argue that such removals can expose deportees to serious harm and may sidestep due process. Supporters contend that the policy is a lawful tool for enforcing immigration law and deterring illegal border crossings.
By acting now, the Court has revived the administration's ability to carry out removals while the underlying litigation continues. That procedural posture means the policy could still face legal challenges on the merits, but for the near term, enforcement agencies can proceed under the Court's order.
The two developments, taken together, display a distinctive pairing of foreign and domestic policy: a retreat from a long-running military engagement abroad and a muscular assertion of executive power at home. Both reflect a governing approach that has prioritized ending what officials describe as open-ended commitments overseas while tightening control over immigration and border enforcement.
For Iraq, the withdrawal's consequences will not be immediate. Analysts have long warned that the exit of U.S. forces can create a vacuum that militias, insurgent groups, or external powers may fill. Iran's influence in Iraqi politics has been substantial, and the current regional conflict could deepen that leverage. Iraqi commanders, meanwhile, insist their forces are capable of holding territory without American assistance, though those claims have not been tested against a major ISIS revival or a wider regional war.
The Supreme Court ruling likewise carries longer-term implications. If third-country deportation agreements become more common, they could reshape how nations negotiate returns of migrants and how courts review those arrangements. Immigration advocates are expected to press new challenges, while states that receive deportees may raise their own objections.
Each story is far from settled. Iraq's sovereignty may be formally restored, but its security will depend on how the country manages internal divisions and external pressures. And the deportation policy may be legally revived, yet it remains contested in both the courts and the public square. What the newsletter captures is a government acting on two fronts at once: exiting one arena and asserting power in another.
(0)