Statements from unnamed DoD officials suggest that President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw U.S. troops from Northeast Syria.
ISIS is largely degraded and regional states have pledged to carry on the fight, Bashar al-Assad’s regime is gone, diplomatic outreach to the new leadership in Damascus is underway, and Iran’s proxy forces have taken a severe beating while losing unfettered access to the Mediterranean via Syria. There’s little reason why U.S. troops should remain in Syria.
Critics of withdrawal argue that it could destabilize Syria’s fragile peace and benefit ISIS, especially since thousands of potential ISIS fighters remain in camps administered by the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF). These are real concerns and any withdrawal should be orderly and coordinated, encouraging diplomacy between Washington’s Kurdish partners (SDF), Turkey, and Damascus —but it should proceed.
Diplomacy between the SDF, Damascus, and Ankara could even be hindered if the SDF believe that U.S. troops will remain indefinitely. Arguing for an indefinite U.S. troop presence in Syria both overstates U.S. influence and ties troops to uncontrollable conditions.
It also offers an opportunity to make diplomatic inroads into the new de facto government in Damascus. Syrians have taken back their country and Washington should respond with diplomacy and sanctions relief rather than indefinite troop deployments. A responsible and timely withdrawal from Syria aligns with U.S. national interests and should be part of a broader effort to reduce the U.S. military presence in regions lacking both international and domestic legal justification.
Adam Weinstein is Deputy Director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, whose current research focuses on security and rule of law in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Top photo credit: U.S. Soldiers conduct area reconnaissance in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility in Syria, Feb. 18, 2021. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)
Top photo credit: S President Donald Trump (2nd left) received his Salvadoran counterpart, Nayib Bukele (left), at the White House on April 14, 2025. The Salvadoran president offered his US counterpart assistance in combating crime and terrorism. Bukele also asserted that he will not return the Salvadoran "terrorist" sent to the Cecot (Cecot) to the US.
Mark Twain was spot on. History does not repeat itself but it commonly rhymes.
President Richard Nixon was bent on flouting an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to surrender White House tapes to a federal grand jury in Nixon v. Sirica (October 12, 1973). Mr. Nixon backed down in the face of overwhelming public and congressional opposition.
As incriminating evidence of President Nixon’s obstruction of justice and abuse of power mounted, he resigned under an impeachment cloud on August 9, 1974. The rule of law held despite President Nixon’s staggering 1972 electoral triumph over Democratic nominee George McGovern winning 49 States, over 60 percent of the popular vote, and capturing 520 electoral votes. An electoral mandate did not supersede the Constitution.
Fast forward to the pending case of Noem v. Abrego Garcia in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The undisputed facts are shocking.
In 2019 during the first Trump administration, an immigration judge entered an order prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he confronted a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” Mr. Trump declined to challenge the order.
On March 15, 2025, some six years later, the second Trump administration seized Abrego Garcia and swiftly transported him to El Salvador. This was allegedly due to an “administrative error,” which was acknowledged by Trump’s Department of Justice . The United States has cited no legal basis for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless seizure, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison.
The deportation was challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On April 4, the court entered an order directing the United States to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia no later than April 7. The Trump administration filed an application to the United States Supreme Court seeking to vacate the District Court’s order.
On April 10, the Supreme Court emphasized the Trump Administration’s concession that Abrego Garcia was unconstitutionally deported to El Salvador. It generally affirmed the District Court but remanded to clarify the meaning of “effectuate” giving deference to the lead role of the executive branch in foreign affairs.
Since then, the Trump administration has maintained that it is a pitiful, helpless giant, unable to secure the return of Abrego Garcia from the clutches of featherweight El Salvador sporting military forces and budget that is a miniscule fraction of the Pentagon’s. Trump, who spent the last two months threatening Panama, cannot secure the return of Garcia by threatening an invasion or trade sanctions?
On April 14, the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, met with President Trump in the Oval Office and pleaded that he was powerless to return Abrego Garcia. President Bukele amplified, “How can I return him to the United States? I smuggle him into the United States? Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?”
President Bukele was being disingenuous, a euphemism for lying. The United States has presented zero evidence that Garcia is a terrorist, a Trump term of art meaning anyone President Trump dislikes. We are in Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking Glasswith Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Moreover, Trump has represented to the District Court that he would place no obstacle to Abrego Garcia’s return.
The Trump administration and the District Court remain at an impasse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio fired a shot across the bow, belligerently proclaiming, “No court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.” In other words, the President is empowered to kidnap and to disappear into dungeons of foreign nations any American citizen without any judicial redress — a constitutional violation with no remedy like a crime with no punishment?
The Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v. Clintondeclared that foreign policy is subject to judicial review. Indeed, in the middle of the Korean War, it held that President Harry Truman’s seizure of steel mills to keep armaments flowing was unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer. And in New York Times v. United States, the Court prohibited President Richard Nixon from suppressing publication of the Pentagon Papers in the middle of the Vietnam War despite protestations of a foreign policy calamity.
The Supreme Court’s decree largely echoed the 1868 Hostage Act, directing steps the President must take to obtain the release of citizens wrongfully detained in foreign countries. It was not encroaching on forbidden presidential territory. The Act provides:
Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.
It is inconceivable that the Supreme Court will wave the white flag of surrender and allow President Trump's illegal deportation of Garcia and apparent refusal to secure his return. SCOTUS was unanimous on April 10 in declaring his deportation unconstitutional.
But the idea of a constitutional right without a remedy feels a bit like a munificent bequest in a pauper’s will. Moreover, if President Trump can defy the Supreme Court in foreign affairs, there is no constitutional firewall against the precedent carrying over into domestic affairs and burning the entire Constitution.
Chief Justice John Marshall observed in Marbury v. Madison, “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury…The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
President Trump may indeed attempt to defy an order of the Supreme Court over Abrego Garcia. He will repeat the lie that Garcia is a terrorist and declare “he who saves the country violates no law.”
If this precedent stands, it will lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use against citizens or non-citizens alike under the banners of “foreign policy” or “national security” — which mean whatever Mr. Trump wants them to mean for this day and train only.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: A fighter plane takes off, said to be, for an operation against the Yemen's Houthis at an unidentified location in this screengrab taken from a handout video released on March 18, 2025. US CENTCOM via X/Handout via REUTERS
Amid its persistent, so-far largely ineffective aerial campaign against Yemen’s Houthis, the U.S. may now move to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government in a ground operation against them.
Indeed, the WSJ reported yesterday that the “U.S. is open to supporting a ground operation by local forces” in Yemen. U.S. officials told the WSJ, however, that the U.S. hasn’t finalized a decision to do so, nor is it leading relevant ground operation talks. However, the paper reported that American private contractors are providing advice to Yemeni factions.
Speculation of some sort of anti-Houthi ground campaign in Yemen has bubbled up for weeks, sparking fears that the country’s civil war, made dormant by a 2022 ceasefire that largely held after its lapse months later, could reignite.
CNN reported on April 6, for example, that Yemen ground operation preparations were underway, and could “involve Saudi and US naval support in an attempt to retake the port of Hodeidah." And Aida Chavez previously reported in the Intercept on March 17 that “U.S.-backed proxy forces in Yemen are likely to restart their ground operations against the Houthis — proxies that will almost certainly be receiving U.S. intelligence and other support."
“The idea that Trump may provide U.S. support to reignite this civil war is horrifying, because it will be extremely bloody,” Dr. Annelle Sheline, Research Fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Responsible Statecraft.
“Such a war would further immiserate the Yemeni population, already the poorest in the Middle East. In 2018, the UN declared Yemen to be the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with 22 million people at risk of starvation due to the war. Restarting the civil war would again put millions of people at risk of famine,” she said.
Publicly, U.S. officials have remained tight-lipped on possible involvement in on-the-ground operations in Yemen.
“I can't talk about that stuff from the podium, but we have ways of conducting sensitive site exploitations without ground troops on the ground,” Sean Parnell, United States Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and Chief Pentagon Spokesman, said about possible U.S. involvement in ground operations in Yemen during a March 17 Pentagon press briefing.
Asked early last week about possible U.S. support for a ground operation in Yemen, likewise, a defense official told Responsible Statecraft on background that details surrounding possible future operations could not be disclosed “due to operational security to ensure the safety and security of…service members.”
The DoD and CENTCOM public affairs did not respond to requests for comment regarding yesterday’s WSJ reporting.
Possible U.S. assistance in a new Aden-led ground campaign may not only be deadly; if previous involvement in Yemen is of any indication, it may well prove ineffective.
"Under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden, the U.S. provided significant support to the Saudi-led coalition that fought a war to oust the Houthis from 2015 to 2022,” Sheline explained. “Even with a massive air campaign as well as a ground invasion led by the Saudis and UAE in southern Yemen, the anti-Houthi coalition was unsuccessful, partly due to the infighting among the Yemeni members, who beyond their antipathy towards the Houthis, agreed on little else.”
If the U.S. wants the Houthis’ Red Sea ship attacks to stop, rather, they might take the Houthis’ stated objectives for their attacks — namely, pressuring Israel to end its onslaught of Gaza — into account.
“The Houthis have consistently said that they will end their attacks on ships traversing the Red Sea when Israel ends its war on Gaza. During the period of the ceasefire from mid January to early March, the Houthis upheld this commitment and did not attack ships,” Sheline explained.
“It was only after Israel violated the ceasefire by preventing any aid from entering Gaza after March 2 that the Houthis declared that they would again attack Israeli ships, and subsequently, the Trump administration bombed them (as people may recall from Signalgate).”
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: El Paso, TX USA December 21, 2022 National Guard troops and Texas State Troopers deployed to the border to deter migrants from crossing. Access via Shutterstock
Despite border crossings dropping, President Trump is continuing with his plan to militarize the U.S. border with Mexico. However, the soldiers will not be arresting illegal crossers but are instead focused on providing support and additional eyes and ears for the Border Patrol agents who are already on the ground.
We will not be actively on patrols," said Maj. Jaren Stafani at a press conference. "We'll be at detection and monitoring sites to provide that information to [the] Border Patrol to then go out and do their law enforcement function."Stefani is leading the Big Bend deployment area. This policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, which is meant to stop the military from participating in civilian law enforcement, with a few exceptions.
Regardless of this, some locals still feel as though their communities are being militarized. Local resident of Presidio, Texas, Anibal Galindo says, “I feel like they're basically turning this place into a military zone, or a wanna-be conflict zone when in reality it isn't.”
Indeed, the military is placing equipment at the border often seen in conflicts overseas, including Stryker vehicles and Navy destroyers. Additionally, the CIA has ramped up drone flights in Mexico, something that began under the Biden administration. The drones are not on mission to kill any fentanyl dealers but to provide information to the Mexican government.
While tensions may rise between the Mexican and American governments over this militarization, some experts worry that the real problem may exist in how the United States handles its fight against the Cartels.
The Trump administration slapped several major cartels with a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” designation earlier this year, granting the federal government broad law enforcement and immigration authorities against them.
“By designating drug cartels as FTOs, the Trump administration unlocks new powers for itself, creates a new media narrative that could fool many, and reinforces the rest of its anti-immigration and border enforcement agenda,” comments Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. According to Nowrasteh, this designation will enable the president to economically punish Latin American states that do not adequately cooperate with Trump’s immigration plan and push his narrative that America is being invaded through its southern border.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) has supported the United States sending weapons of war into Mexico. “We need to somehow figure out diplomatically how to make this Mexico’s idea. That they’re asking for our military support, such as close air support, such as an AC-130 gunship overhead while they’re prosecuting a target and surrounded by sicarios… If I was in that situation as a Navy SEAL, we would just call in close air support, all those guys would be gone, and we’d move along our merry way.”
Cato’s Justin Logan has explained the faulty reasoning behind this policy. He explains that “despite seeing its homicide rate more than triple in less than two decades, Mexico is still nowhere near Colombia’s levels of violence during the Narcos era of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the country reached the alarming rate of 85 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. Comparing Mexico’s violence in 2023 to that of Colombia in 1993 borders on the preposterous.”
When the Mexican government militarized its anti-Cartel effort in the mid-2000s, homicide rates there tripled.
For now, locals like Anibal Galindo must ready themselves for what comes next as the Trump Administration sends thousands of troops to border towns.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.