The final contingent of American service members lifted off from Camp Victory on September 29, 2026, marking the end of a 23-year military footprint in Iraq. Baghdad declared the day “Sovereignty Day,” celebrating the withdrawal even as Iranian-backed militias and remnants of the Islamic State voice renewed confidence in filling the security gap left by the United States.
During the two-decade presence, more than 4,500 American personnel lost their lives and the mission evolved from an occupation after the 2003 invasion to a partnership against ISIS that concluded in 2017. The 2024 agreement, signed under President Joe Biden, set a timetable that the current administration has now fulfilled. While many Iraqis greeted the departure with hopes for a peaceful future, security analysts warn that Iraqi forces, despite extensive U.S. training, still lack robust air-defense capabilities and reliable intelligence streams previously supplied by American assets.
Regional implications of the US pullout
Iran views the exit as a strategic triumph for its “axis of resistance,” arguing that the absence of Western troops will empower its proxy militias across Baghdad and the Kurdish north. Political commentator Ahmed Younis cautioned that these groups could expand their influence over state institutions, potentially destabilizing already fragile governance structures. Retired General Mohammed al-Jubouri, who once led Iraqi brigades against ISIS, stressed the importance of a viable “Plan B” for Iraqi security services, noting the risk that sleeper cells could acquire improvised explosive devices or even commercial drones without sufficient counter-measures.
In the Kurdish region, leaders expressed deep anxiety after a series of strikes linked to the broader U.S.–Iran confrontation. Jane Arraf reported that local authorities fear the loss of U.S. air-defense assets will leave key installations vulnerable, prompting calls for greater regional cooperation. Nonetheless, ordinary citizens celebrating Sovereignty Day emphasized a long-standing desire for stability and a return to normal life after years of conflict.
Supreme Court temporarily restores Trump’s third-country deportation policy
On the same day, the United States Supreme Court issued an order allowing the Trump administration to resume deportations to nations not explicitly listed in prior removal agreements. The court has scheduled full argument for December, but for now the pause imposed by a lower-court ruling is lifted. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, asked whether lower courts possess the authority to intervene and whether the policy breaches due-process standards or violates anti-torture protections.
Legal scholar Linda Kenyon explained that third-country removals enable the government to transfer migrants to a third nation when their home country refuses repatriation. Immigration advocates warn the approach could cause irreversible harm, citing cases such as an asylum seeker with severe mental illness who fears being sent to a country lacking adequate treatment. Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, detained for 104 days, said the experience hardened his resolve to challenge the policy in court.
Trump’s AI summit and the push for voluntary industry oversight
Later that Tuesday, President Trump convened a meeting with executives from six leading artificial-intelligence firms, signing an executive order that labels AI as “superintelligence” for federal agencies. The president argued that the Justice Department or FBI could intervene if companies violate the law, yet no specific AI legislation was introduced. Instead, the tech leaders signed a one-page pledge to monitor their models, flag harmful applications such as hacking, and self-regulate through mutual oversight.
Emily Feng noted that the agreement is morally binding rather than legally enforceable, relying on industry goodwill to police itself. Trump described the arrangement as a “morally binding” contract, asserting that the firms would “police each other.” While critics argue the absence of statutory teeth may limit effectiveness, supporters claim the move signals a pragmatic shift toward collaborative governance of rapidly evolving technology.
