The Trump administration is quietly moving toward a clean break from Syria. The last time Washington flirted with that idea, it detonated inside the Pentagon. This time, the ground has shifted, the players have changed, and the question is sharper: what happens to the ISIS problem when the Americans leave?
What You Should Know
U.S. officials told CBS News the Trump administration plans to withdraw about 1,000 remaining U.S. troops from Syria over the next two months. The U.S. has maintained a presence there since 2015 as part of the fight against ISIS.
The drawdown, as described to CBS News, would end a roughly decade-long mission that has lived in the gray zone between counterterrorism, alliance management, and regional deterrence. It also lands in a Syria that looks nothing like the map U.S. planners were staring at even a few years ago.
A Withdrawal Plan That Ends a Mission and Starts a Fight
According to CBS News, the U.S. is planning to pull its remaining forces from Syria over about two months. The report puts the number at roughly 1,000 troops, a small footprint that has carried outsized political weight because it represents an American flag planted inside one of the region’s most combustible pressure cookers.
Two locations tied to the U.S. presence have already seen departures, CBS News reported: the al Tanf garrison in southern Syria and the al Shaddadi base in the northeast. For a mission that has often been described in Washington as limited, the footprint has still been large enough to draw fire, generate diplomatic friction, and force the White House to repeatedly explain what, exactly, success looks like.
The administration has not publicly framed the plan as a policy retreat. But the math is hard to miss. Pull the last troops, and the U.S. forfeits on-the-ground leverage with local partners, while betting it can keep ISIS suppressed through intelligence, regional coordination, and strikes launched from elsewhere.
Syria After Assad: New Bosses, New Deals, Same Risks
The biggest change in the backdrop is political. CBS News reported that Syria’s security situation shifted dramatically after the Assad government collapsed in late 2024, and that the Trump administration has sought to work with Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa. That name matters because, as CBS reported, al-Sharaa is a former rebel leader who has said he renounced past ties with al Qaeda.
For the U.S., that creates an awkward kind of leverage problem. Washington spent years building a relationship with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, as the most effective local partner against ISIS. But the new Syrian government and the SDF have also been on a collision course.
The Associated Press reported on a deal aimed at integrating the SDF into Syria’s armed forces. In theory, integration is the kind of arrangement that could stabilize territory and consolidate command. In practice, it is also a test of who controls the prisons, who controls the checkpoints, and who gets to decide what happens to thousands of ISIS detainees.
That is the part that keeps U.S. officials up at night, and it is the part that does not disappear just because American troops do.
The ISIS Prison Question, Now With Fewer Guards
For years, the SDF has been a key part of the detention architecture holding thousands of ISIS prisoners and family members in prisons and camps, CBS News reported. The U.S. role has not just been air support and special operations. It has been political backing, resources, and a security umbrella that helps the whole detention system stay intact.
In early February 2026, the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, announced the completion of a mission to transfer ISIS detainees from facilities in Syria to Iraqi custody. CBS News also reported the transfer, putting the figure at 5,700 ISIS suspects moved to Iraq.
That is a big number, and it cuts both ways. On one hand, moving detainees out of Syria reduces the risk that a prison break turns into a battlefield event that reignites ISIS recruitment. On the other hand, it underlines the scale of what remains. Even after a transfer of thousands, the detention problem is still massive, still expensive, and still politically radioactive for every government that touches it.
If U.S. troops leave while Syria’s internal power arrangements are still settling, the next question becomes less about whether ISIS is defeated and more about who owns the mess if ISIS attempts a comeback.
Operation Names, Real Casualties, and a Timeline That Does Not Care
The U.S. presence has also carried a straightforward risk: Americans can get killed there. CBS News reported that in December, two members of the Iowa National Guard and a translator were killed in an ambush attack by a lone ISIS gunman, citing the Pentagon. CBS reported the retaliation that followed, with strikes conducted under the name Operation Hawkeye Strike.
CENTCOM publicly referenced Operation Hawkeye Strike in a press release about actions against ISIS in Syria. Whatever the troop numbers, the underlying logic has been consistent for years: ISIS is degraded, not gone, and U.S. commanders have treated disruption operations as a recurring necessity.
That creates a political contradiction that never really goes away. If the mission is defined as stopping ISIS from regenerating, then leaving forces less room for error. If the mission is defined as ending an open-ended deployment, then staying looks like a promise broken.
The Other Enemies in the Neighborhood
ISIS is not the only threat vector that has shaped the U.S. posture. CBS News reported that U.S. bases in Syria have periodically faced attacks by Iranian-backed groups in recent years. It also reported that U.S.-allied Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria have faced pressure from neighboring Turkey.
Those pressures make Syria less like a single mission and more like a tangle of overlapping confrontations. Iran-backed forces have viewed U.S. positions as targets and symbols. Turkey has viewed Kurdish-led forces near its border as a national security issue. The U.S. has tried to keep the lid on all of it while running counter-ISIS operations and managing alliances that do not always align with one another.
Pulling out does not end those conflicts. It changes how, and how well, the U.S. can influence them.
Trump Tried This Before, and It Cost a Defense Secretary
The most revealing piece of context is that this is not a new instinct for President Trump. In his first term, Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria completely and at one point announced that all 2,000 troops would leave, CBS News reported. The backlash was not abstract. It showed up in resignations, internal dissent, and a scramble to rewrite the plan into something that looked less like a full exit.
One resignation became the symbol of the fight. Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis quit soon after, citing policy disagreements, CBS News reported. In his resignation letter, Mattis wrote, “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”
Trump ultimately agreed to keep a smaller presence, CBS News reported. Now, the administration appears to be revisiting the original impulse, but with a new set of facts that make the decision easier to argue and harder to execute cleanly.
What To Watch if the US Leaves
First, watch who controls detention facilities and camps as the U.S. footprint shrinks. Transfers to Iraq can reduce the load, but they also raise questions about long-term custody, due process, and the security capacity of whoever inherits the problem.
Second, watch the relationship between Syria’s new government and the Kurdish-led SDF. The Associated Press described an integration deal. Integration can mean stability, or it can mean a slow-motion takeover that leaves parts of the security architecture weaker.
Third, watch the tempo of ISIS activity. CENTCOM has treated ISIS as a persistent threat that requires periodic strike campaigns. If U.S. troops are no longer in Syria, the administration will be judged on whether it can maintain pressure without the same on-the-ground access.
Finally, watch how the administration sells the decision. Ending a deployment plays well politically until the first intelligence briefing that says the adversary is adapting. Syria has a long history of punishing simple narratives.
References
- CBS News: U.S. Trump Administration Planning To Pull All Troops From Syria, Sources Say
- Associated Press: Syria Deal Seeks To Integrate Kurdish-Led SDF Into State Forces
- CBS News: U.S. Military Transfer Of ISIS Suspects From Syria To Iraq Complete
- U.S. Central Command: U.S. Forces Complete Mission In Syria To Transfer ISIS Detainees To Iraq
- U.S. Central Command: CENTCOM Launches Operation Hawkeye Strike Against ISIS in Syria
- CBS News: James Mattis Resigns as Defense Secretary
