U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described himself as a “president of peace,” pointing to his stated goal of avoiding prolonged ground wars and reducing long-term military commitments overseas. The message has resonated with many Americans who support a more restrained U.S. role in global conflicts.
At the same time, conflict monitoring organizations report that the United States has conducted more than 500 air and naval strikes worldwide in 2025, highlighting the complexity of modern U.S. military strategy and raising questions about how peace is defined in an era of remote warfare.
A Longstanding Focus on Avoiding Ground Wars
Trump’s approach to foreign policy has consistently emphasized limiting U.S. troop deployments. During both his first and second terms, he argued that American forces should not be tasked with resolving long-running disputes in distant regions.
In his second inaugural address, Trump said his administration would be judged by its ability to end wars, prevent new ones, and protect U.S. interests without becoming entangled in open-ended conflicts. This philosophy builds on themes he raised earlier at military events, including his 2020 address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
The administration maintains that avoiding large-scale deployments reduces American casualties and financial costs while preserving military readiness.
Increased Reliance on Airstrikes and Naval Power
While the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas has remained relatively stable, data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project indicates a higher tempo of U.S. airstrikes and maritime operations in 2025 compared with recent years.
These operations have taken place across several regions, including:
Iran, where U.S. forces targeted nuclear-related infrastructure
Yemen, involving strikes against Houthi military assets
Syria and Somalia, focused on Islamic State (ISIS) affiliates
Nigeria, at the request of the Nigerian government, against militant groups
Venezuela, as part of maritime interdiction and security efforts
Administration officials describe these actions as targeted, limited in scope, and designed to deter threats rather than escalate conflicts.
“Peace Through Strength” as a Strategic Framework
Senior defense officials characterize the strategy as peace through strength, a doctrine intended to discourage adversaries by demonstrating U.S. military capability without committing to long-term occupations.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has stated that decisive military action, when necessary, can prevent broader conflicts and protect U.S. national security interests. Supporters of this approach argue that airstrikes and naval operations offer flexibility and speed, particularly when responding to terrorism, threats to shipping lanes, or regional instability.
From this perspective, military activity does not necessarily contradict a goal of peace, especially when it avoids prolonged engagements.
Ongoing Debate Over Effectiveness
Some security analysts caution that airpower alone may have limited impact in addressing deeply rooted conflicts. According to conflict researchers, intermittent strikes can disrupt militant operations but may not resolve underlying political, economic, or sectarian drivers of violence.
For example, in regions such as northern Nigeria, where communal and religious tensions are widespread, analysts note that military action is only one part of a broader security challenge. In Yemen, where U.S. involvement has been more sustained, observers say results have been mixed, with some tactical gains alongside ongoing humanitarian concerns.
Political Reactions at Home
Within the United States, reactions to the increased number of overseas strikes have varied. Some supporters see the actions as consistent with Trump’s promise to defend American interests without entering new wars. Others have expressed concern that the scope of military operations may expand beyond their original objectives.
Several Republican lawmakers and strategists have called for clearer explanations of how current operations align with earlier commitments to limit foreign entanglements. At the same time, public opinion polls suggest that many Americans continue to prioritize domestic economic issues over foreign policy.
Defining Peace in Modern U.S. Foreign Policy
As global conflicts evolve, the distinction between war and peace has become less clear-cut. Advanced military technology allows the U.S. to engage abroad with fewer troops, but not without consequences or debate.
For the Trump administration, the challenge lies in reconciling its peace-oriented messaging with a high level of military activity, even if that activity is largely conducted from the air or sea.
Whether this strategy ultimately reduces long-term conflict or reshapes how Americans understand peace remains an open question — one likely to continue shaping U.S. foreign policy discussions into 2026.