There are many metrics by which U.S. President Donald Trump’s first year back in office can be measured. Some will measure it by tariffs and the economy, some by ICE and immigration, and some by civility and democracy.
But, from a foreign policy perspective, the best metric by which to measure Trump’s first year is the one he set for himself. Trump promised to be the “president of peace” and stated in his inaugural address, “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end—and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”
But Trump has not been the president of peace. He has carried out 622 bombings since the day that promise was made. He has carried out military strikes on seven countries. In some cases, though Trump is not the president who started the war, he escalated them. Others he started, despite promising that “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars.” Each of the wars he started was a war of choice. And each choice was a bad choice because the war was unnecessary with causes that were, at times, fictitious, and solutions that were, at times, on the table.
Trump has not only started wars, he has threatened wars. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says that America’s “adversaries remain on notice. America can project our will anywhere, anytime.” Trump threatened Columbia, telling its president to “watch his ass.” Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned Cuba that “if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least, a little bit.” Trump warned that “Mexico has to get their act together, because [drugs are] pouring through Mexico, and we’re going to have to do something.”
Though he has not threatened Canada militarily, he has repeatedly threatened to use “economic force” to “get rid of that artificially drawn line” between Canada and the United States and make “Canada become our 51st state.”
He has called acquiring Greenland “an absolute necessity” and declined to rule out taking it militarily. On January 17, Trump announced that tariffs would be placed on “Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland…until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” This use of tariffs is not to protect American markets. It is a coercive attempt to violate the sovereignty off a NATO ally and annex its territory.
Trump has not only threatened wars, he has waged them. He has carried out military strikes in Iraq. At the end of 2025, Trump ordered Operation Hawkeye Strike, striking more than seventy ISIS targets in Syria. The strikes were a response to an attack in the city of Palmyra that killed two U.S. soldiers. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth called the operation “a declaration of vengeance.” But, though the Trump administration sought vengeance on ISIS for the killing of the U.S. soldiers, the Syrian Interior Ministry soon revealed that the gunman was a member of Syria’s security forces. Trump has escalated the strikes on Syria. On January 10, the U.S. “fired more than 90 bombs and missiles toward at least 35 targets.”
As president-elect, Trump had declared that “Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”
Since his inauguration, Trump has increased counterterrorism operations in Somalia, launching 126 operations. Trump did not begin this war; the campaign began as part of the war on terrorism begun by George W. Bush. But Trump intensified it. In his first year back in office, the United States has conducted more operations in Somalia than during the Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden years combined.
Trump also increased the number of air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen before ending them in May.
Trump also started three wars: Nigeria, Iran, and Venezuela.
Trump first declared Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act, a label reserved for countries engaged in, or tolerating, “systematic, ongoing, (and) egregious violations of religious freedom,” saying that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria.” He warned that the United States “may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” and that, if the U.S. attacks, “it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!” On Christmas day, he did just that, bombing sixteen targets inside Nigeria.
But this war of choice was a poor choice because the justification for the war was a fiction. Islamic militants are killing Christians. But Christians are killing Muslims too. And even that is not the whole story because Islamic groups like Boko Haram are also killing Muslims that they regard as infidels.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in its 2024 Nigeria update states that the “violence affects large numbers of Christians and Muslims.” More Muslims have been killed than Christians. In the region where Christians are victims of a disproportionate amount of the deaths, the killings are carried out by Muslim herders, not by Islamic militants, and the killings are not religiously motivated. They are not Muslims killing Christians for their faith so much as herders killing farmers in a competitive battle for land and water that results from climate-driven, not religious, disputes. The U.S. Embassy in Nigeria states that the crisis is due, in part, to “high levels of food insecurity.”
As in Nigeria, the war of choice in Venezuela was based on a fiction. On January 3, the U.S. attacked Venezuela and captured its president Nicolás Maduro. The military operation was originally sold as a war against a narco-terrorist state and its president who was the “kingpin” of vicious cartels that flood America with drugs. The U.S. knew both those claims to be false. They knew that Venezuela is not a significant source of fentanyl or other drugs, and they knew that Maduro was not the kingpin of, or even cooperative with, the cartels. When the rewritten indictment against Maduro was revealed on the day Maduro was captured, the claim that the Cartel de los Soles was an actual organization and that Maduro was its leader was gone.
The war was not only based on a fiction, but was unnecessary. Though Trump seems to have sided with Rubio’s military track over Richard Grenell’s diplomatic track, the track followed after the military operation is not far from the diplomatic track Grenell seems to have been pursuing with some success. Under a diplomatic deal discussed by Venezuela and the United States prior to the military operation, Maduro offered to open all oil projects to U.S. companies, give preferential contracts to U.S. companies and stop the flow of oil to China. There is a strong resemblance between that diplomatic resolution and the one forced on Venezuela militarily.
There are also reports that Maduro was willing to step down if his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, be allowed to head an interim government until elections could be held; again, not unlike the results brought about militarily.
Despite the June 23 U.S. bombing of Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities, a diplomatic solution was on the table. There were two possible versions. One would see Iran export or convert its highly enriched uranium and limit future enrichment to 3.67% while agreeing to maximum transparency and inspections in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Another would see Iran fold its nuclear program into an international consortium that would allow Iran to enrich uranium but deny it access to the full enrichment process by distributing various roles in the process across different member states, who would likely include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The various member states could assist the IAEA by keeping a watchful eye on each other.
The war of choice was unnecessary. Since then, Trump has threatened to attack Iran again under three circumstances: if Iran reconstitutes its civilian nuclear program, if it continues with its ballistic missile program, or if it kills people in recent protests. Trump has also threatened regime change. On January 13, Trump posted, “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING. TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!” On January 17, Trump explicitly stated that “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.”
At the commencement of his first year back in office, Trump said that his performance should be measured by “the wars we never get into.” By the end of his first year, considering he did not win the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump is now saying “I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.” By Trump’s own metric and admission, the first year has not been a success.
