The military actions in the USA during the first months after the second term of office of Donald Trump as the President of this nation developed considerably more harshly in 2025. In the period between January 2025-May 2025, American raids saw 529 airstrikes carried out on 240 locations all across the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Africa. This one is almost as much as all airstrikes that President Joe Biden took in the entirety of his office, which means a huge strategic change. It is especially notable that Trump in his campaign had vowed to stop endless wars, however, the revival of the air operations in the military is a profound breakage of that promise.
The centerpiece of this surge in operations was Operation Rough Rider in Yemen that lasted 53 days taking place between March and May. The 339 airstrikes in that time alone represented one of the most intense bombing campaigns there has been since the Saudi-led intervention started in 2015. The number of civilian casualties was significant: monitoring services claimed 238 civilians died and at least 24 of them were children with hundreds of civilians wounded. The number of people killed is almost the same as the number of civilians killed during the last 20 years of activity of the U.S. in Yemen, which led to considerations regarding efficiency and morality of excessive use of airpower as a predominant method of conflict interaction.
Doctrinal Shift: Prioritizing Airpower Over Ground Involvement
In 2025, the Trump doctrine of the military will focus on very swift and quickly overwhelming air operations compared to the old ground warfare. The strategic model aims at reducing American military incursion in countries all over in order to sustain an expedited capacity of punishing or incapacitating perceived aggressors. This strategy has led to several high profile airstrikes across Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Syria- most of them have been aimed at high value assets or leadership targets. One such bombardment notable was an air attack by the U.S. on three nuclear sites under development by Iran in June; this drew diplomatic objections in international circles and increased tensions in the region.
This shift embodies a strategy of “maximum pressure through force,” attempting to deter adversaries without committing troops on the ground. Professor Clionadh Raleigh who founded the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) noted that airstrike as a strategy regularly employed by Trump is actually the “default military response” in that it focuses on the quick response rather than on the stabilization. This saves on operations costs, as well as political upheaval domestically when sending troops to combat, but this increases the issues of consistency and proportionality in addition to long-term effectiveness.
The Humanitarian and Legal Repercussions of Escalated Strikes
Civilian Impact and Legal Scrutiny
There has been a tremendous increase in civilians being affected by the use of airstrikes in war zones as a prime method of creating the required war. Even in Yemen alone, US strikes in 2025 have now led to 224 confirmed fatal civilian deaths, which now almost match the tally of American operations in the region during the last 23 years. Two specific airstrikes in April, one on a migrant detention center and the other on a residential area of Al Hudaydah, were reported as potential war crimes by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch since many civilians were killed in these attacks in the lack of visible military infrastructures.
Emily Tripp, an Airwars director, has commented by saying that
“There is no justification for such high levels of civilian harm,”
citing lack of transparency in the investigations carried by the Pentagon into such cases. The United States is receiving growing international attention in the form of questions as to its observance of international humanitarian law at the expense of sacrificing civilian casualties, because of its adherence to a doctrine that avoids ground-based intelligence in favor of rapid airborne responses.
Diplomatic Fallout and Strategic Blowback
The focus of Trump on unilateral military means accompanied by a lack of either a wide coalition-forming or an alignment with allies has also brought diplomatic tension. Such allies as NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council have been panicked by the inconsistent quality of U.S. involvement. Conversely, the opposition such as Iran has utilized the strikes as a way of attacking in retaliation and also to strengthen anti-American feeling within the nation.
On the domestic front, a screw up of political messaging is the inconsistency between the anti-war rhetoric that Trump presents and the reality of his administration. Although his base typically celebrated the evasion of new ground conflicts, discontent has mounted amid discontent over the absence of openness, the humanitarian impact, as well as what some describe as the absence of strategic thinking.
Reassessing U.S. Objectives: Counterterrorism and Global Posturing
Targeting Non-State and State Adversaries
The military strategy of the second term of the Trump administration combines two most fundamental objectives such as countering terrorism and strategic deterrence. Airstrikes against Al-Shabab bases in Somalia and against residues of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have continued to form the mainstay of U.S activity. Nevertheless, 2025 has also seen the proliferation of antagonism with state players- especially Iran who has boosted its uranium enrichment and empowered its proxies in Iraq and Lebanon.
Such operations are consistent with the administration rebranded as its own revamp of the old “Project 2025”; a hybrid political project and military vision that advocates the modernization of U.S weapons systems, hypersonic strike systems and deterrence of nuclear attack using nuclear weapons. Although it represents a shift towards the idea of “great power competition”, the fact that such strategy is carried out in the form of unannounced and unilateral air campaigns demonstrates uncertainty in the overall strategy of power projection and its ability to be employed in the context of long-term relations with other countries.
Command Consolidation and Military Autonomy
Under Trump, the centralization of military authority in the Executive Office has further accelerated response times. Military decisions often bypass Congress and sometimes occur with limited interagency dialogue, reflecting Trump’s emphasis on rapid, decisive action. Analysts warn this dynamic erodes legislative oversight and could lead to impulsive engagements with unpredictable fallout.
This person has spoken on the topic: Analyst Rachael Blevins pointed out that
“The second-term air campaign under Trump demonstrates the tension between political rhetoric and operational reality, with risks of strategic incoherence and increased humanitarian costs.”
It took Trump *checks notes* less than two months to go from promising “No new wars,” to bombing Yemen and killing dozens of civilians, including several children, and openly threatening war against Iran… pic.twitter.com/1tgeFDwUMu
— Rachel Blevins (@RachBlevins) March 17, 2025
Her assessment highlights the strategic uncertainty accompanying such air campaigns and the potential erosion of accountability.
Managing the Contradictions of Trump’s Military Strategy
Trump’s dual narrative—championing military disengagement while escalating remote aerial campaigns—has led to internal contradictions within U.S. strategic posture. On one hand, he maintains electoral commitments to end “forever wars” and reduce American troop footprints. On the other, the uptick in high-lethality air campaigns contradicts both the spirit and substance of those promises.
This gap fuels confusion among international observers, weakens American soft power, and complicates alliance coordination. Allies are unsure whether the United States under Trump will act as a reliable stabilizing force or an unpredictable power that prioritizes tactical advantage over strategic consistency.
Policy Without Strategy
While the Trump administration’s use of airpower achieves short-term military objectives, it lacks the long-term vision necessary to convert these tactical gains into political stability. Targeting militant groups or adversarial infrastructure without follow-up governance, reconstruction, or diplomatic frameworks risks perpetuating instability. It also fosters anti-American narratives exploited by extremist groups.
Without clearly defined objectives, escalation thresholds, and exit strategies, the air campaign functions more as a series of reactions than a coordinated national security doctrine. This improvisational style, though occasionally effective in deterring adversaries, may undermine long-term U.S. influence and credibility.
The first half of 2025 has revealed a telling portrait of President Trump’s second-term approach to military power: resolute, reactive, and reliant on air dominance. Yet beneath this show of strength lies a core tension—between campaign-era vows of disengagement and the realities of continuous military action abroad. As airstrikes continue to rise, questions persist over what strategic ends they serve and whether short-term victories are paving the way for longer-term instability. The evolving interplay between politics, military innovation, and international law will shape not only the legacy of Trump’s foreign policy but also the trajectory of U.S. engagement in an increasingly fragmented global order.
