The United States has pulled its final remaining troops out of Iraq, closing a military chapter that began with the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. The departure, confirmed in the closing days of September 2026, marks the end of more than two decades of American military presence in the country and leaves Iraq's long-term defense posture uncertain at a moment of heightened regional tension.
According to NPR's Up First newsletter, the withdrawal coincides with an ongoing war involving Iran, adding a layer of volatility to the security environment in which Iraqi forces now must operate without direct U.S. battlefield support. The newsletter noted that Iraq has declared the day of the final pullout "Soverei" — a truncated reference to a sovereignty celebration — underscoring how politically significant Baghdad considers the exit of American forces.
The timing of the withdrawal places Iraq in a delicate position. For years, U.S. troops served as a counterweight to Iranian influence in the region, and their absence could open space for Tehran to expand its already considerable footprint in Iraqi politics and security affairs. The source material does not specify the size of the departing contingent or the precise mechanics of the drawdown, but it does make clear that the move represents the definitive end of the U.S. combat and advisory mission in the country.
That mission had evolved dramatically since the 2003 invasion. What began as a large-scale occupation gave way to a sustained counterinsurgency campaign, then to a train-and-assist role, and finally to a smaller advisory presence focused on preventing a resurgence of the Islamic State group. Each phase drew criticism — from those who argued the U.S. stayed too long, and from those who warned that leaving too soon would squander hard-won gains.
The final withdrawal raises immediate questions about who fills the vacuum. Iraq's own security forces have grown more capable over the years, but they have historically relied on American intelligence, logistics, and air support to conduct major operations. Whether Baghdad can sustain those capabilities independently — or whether it will turn to other partners, including Iran — remains an open question that will shape the region for years to come.
In a separate but equally consequential development, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration on the issue of third-country deportations, reviving a policy that had been blocked in lower courts. The newsletter described the ruling as a temporary but significant win for the White House, allowing the administration to proceed with removing migrants to countries other than their own.
The practice of third-country deportation has been among the most contested elements of the administration's immigration agenda. Critics argue that sending people to nations where they have no ties, no legal status, and potentially no protection exposes them to serious harm and may violate international obligations. Supporters contend that the policy is a lawful tool for managing border enforcement and that courts should not micromanage the executive branch's foreign policy judgments.
The Supreme Court's action does not necessarily resolve the underlying legal dispute. The newsletter framed the outcome as a revival of the policy "for now," suggesting that further litigation is likely and that the justices' intervention may be procedural rather than a final ruling on the merits. Even so, the immediate effect is to allow deportations to resume while the cases continue to work through the courts.
The twin developments — the Iraq exit and the deportation ruling — reflect a broader pattern in American governance at this moment: a president pressing forward on long-promised policy changes, and a judiciary that is intermittently permitting those changes while legal challenges unfold. Both stories also carry international ramifications, one military and one humanitarian.
The Up First newsletter also flagged artificial intelligence as a topic of the day, tied to a Trump AI summit. The source text does not elaborate on the substance of that gathering, but its inclusion alongside the Iraq and deportation stories suggests the administration is seeking to project action on multiple fronts simultaneously, from national security to immigration to emerging technology.
For Iraq, the coming months will test whether its government can assert sovereignty in practice as well as in symbolism. The declaration of a national day of "Soverei" signals pride in the American departure, but pride is not a defense strategy. Iraqi leaders will need to manage internal factions, external pressures from Iran and other neighbors, and the persistent threat of extremist resurgence.
For the United States, the withdrawal closes one of the most divisive chapters in its recent foreign policy history. The 2003 invasion, launched on the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, led to a prolonged and costly occupation. The absence of those weapons, the rise of insurgent violence, and the eventual emergence of the Islamic State group all contributed to a deep public skepticism about large-scale military interventions that continues to shape American politics.
How history judges the Iraq withdrawal will depend heavily on what follows. If Iraq remains stable and sovereign, the exit may be remembered as a long-overdue conclusion. If instability follows, critics will likely argue that the U.S. left too soon and without adequate safeguards. The source material does not offer a verdict, and neither can any single day's news.
What is clear is that two of the most consequential policy tracks in American life — the use of military force abroad and the enforcement of immigration law at home — moved forward on the same day, each with lasting implications and each certain to face continued scrutiny in the courts, in Congress, and in the court of public opinion.
(0)