https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-ended-6-or-7-wars-what-record-shows/

In recent weeks, President Trump has repeatedly claimed he deserves credit for ending six or seven wars during his first months in office, arguing that he should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

“I stopped seven wars, and they were, they’re big ones too,” Mr. Trump said Friday. 

“I’ve settled six wars, and a lot of people say seven because there’s one that nobody knows about,” he said in an August 19 interview.

According to news reports and statements from the Trump administration, President Trump has claimed to have resolved seven specific conflicts, which are seen by his administration as “wars.”¹ Here is a breakdown of each one, based on recent reporting and fact-checking:

• Israel and Iran: Recent reports confirm a 12-day war occurred between Israel and Iran, which was ended with a ceasefire brokered with U.S. involvement.² President Trump has taken credit for this, and some foreign policy experts have credited his intervention as a contributing factor.
• Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda: A peace agreement, known as the Washington Accord, was signed on June 27, 2025.³ This treaty, mediated by the United States, aims to end the conflict by having Rwanda withdraw troops from the eastern DRC and the Congolese government ending support for certain militias. Officials from Rwanda have publicly credited President Trump’s leadership for making the agreement possible.
• Armenia and Azerbaijan: A U.S.-brokered peace agreement was signed in August 2025, which aims to end the long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The agreement includes provisions for reopening transport routes and normalizing relations. Both the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders have publicly thanked President Trump for his role.⁴
• India and Pakistan: Following a period of heightened tensions and cross-border strikes, a ceasefire was reached between the two nations in May 2025.⁵ President Trump has claimed credit for brokering this ceasefire, but officials in India have publicly denied that the U.S. had a significant role, stating that the matter was resolved bilaterally.⁶
• Thailand and Cambodia: A five-day border conflict in July 2025 resulted in a ceasefire brokered by the Malaysian prime minister.⁷ While President Trump claimed on social media to have brokered the deal, reports from the region indicate that the truce was officially declared in Kuala Lumpur, and not through direct U.S. mediation.⁸
• Egypt and Ethiopia: The long-running dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has not been formally resolved.⁹ Recent reports indicate that Egypt and Sudan have rejected a wider mediation effort.¹⁰ In July 2025, President Trump made public comments about the dam and his administration’s role, but no formal peace agreement has been announced.¹¹
• Serbia and Kosovo: While there was a U.S.-brokered agreement in 2020 under the previous Trump administration, the core issues between Serbia and Kosovo remain unresolved, with continued EU-led negotiations and ongoing tensions. Recent reporting indicates a continued “European mediation effort” to normalize relations.¹²

Regarding the “one no one knows about,” there is no publicly confirmed information about an eighth conflict that was ended by the Trump administration. His claims refer to the seven listed above.¹³

Based on reports from the White House and independent fact-checking organizations, it is not possible to give a single number for how many wars were “ended” because the status of the conflicts is complex and open to interpretation.

Instead, the situations can be categorized as follows:

• Peace Agreements Signed: Reports from the White House, and in some cases, the leaders of the countries themselves, confirm that formal peace agreements were signed with U.S. mediation in two cases:¹
  • Armenia and Azerbaijan: A peace agreement was signed in August 2025 aimed at ending their long-standing conflict.²
  • Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda: The Washington Accord was signed in June 2025, which included the withdrawal of troops.³
• Ceasefires and De-escalation: In other cases, hostilities were de-escalated or a ceasefire was reached, though the U.S. role is a point of contention:
  • Israel and Iran: A 12-day war was ended with a ceasefire, with some experts crediting U.S. intervention as a key factor.⁴
  • India and Pakistan: A ceasefire was reached, but Indian officials have publicly stated that the U.S. did not play a significant role.⁵
  • Thailand and Cambodia: A brief conflict ended with a ceasefire brokered by a third party, despite claims of U.S. involvement.
• Ongoing Disputes: Two of the claimed “wars” are widely considered to be ongoing disputes with no formal peace agreement in place:
  • Egypt and Ethiopia: The conflict over the Nile River dam remains unresolved, with reports from late August and early September 2025 indicating that talks have stalled and Egypt and Sudan have rejected a wider mediation effort.⁶
  • Serbia and Kosovo: Despite a 2020 agreement on economic normalization, diplomatic tensions and issues over de facto recognition continue, with no comprehensive peace deal.⁷

In short, while formal peace agreements were signed in some cases, others were ceasefires, and two remain unresolved disputes.

You are right to focus on that specific statement. The claim that there’s a war “nobody knows about” is fundamentally different from the others because it is, by its very nature, an unverifiable statement.

Here’s why such a claim is a point of contention and why it’s considered unfair to use as proof:

• The Lack of Verifiability: The core issue is that a claim about a secret event cannot be confirmed or denied. Fact-checkers, journalists, and foreign policy experts have searched for any public record or evidence of an eighth war or a conflict that was ended in secret, and no such information has been found. When a claim cannot be proven false because it is hidden from the public record, it places the burden on the listener to accept it on faith, which is a significant departure from standard public discourse.
• Rhetorical Function: According to analysis by political commentators and communication experts, statements about a “secret” accomplishment can serve a specific rhetorical purpose. They can be used to suggest a level of influence, effectiveness, and knowledge that is greater than what is publicly visible. It implies that a leader is working on a level far beyond what the public can see, adding to a persona of unique power and capability. This technique can be effective in building trust with supporters but is often viewed by critics as a way to avoid accountability.
• The Pattern of Disputed Claims: The statement is often viewed in the context of other claims that have been fact-checked and found to be either partially true or unsubstantiated. As we discussed, many of the six other conflicts cited by President Trump were not full-scale “wars” in the traditional sense, and in several cases, his administration’s role was either disputed or a formal peace agreement was not reached.¹ When a verifiable claim is often found to be misleading, an unverifiable claim becomes even more scrutinized.

In essence, the statement is not about a verifiable event but about creating a perception. Its power lies not in its truth, but in its ability to defy verification, making it a source of significant criticism.

The idea of “normalcy” in politics is a topic of significant public discussion, and many people have expressed a similar sentiment. It’s often debated how much the current political climate differs from past eras, and what factors contribute to that perception.

The public discourse about the political climate in the United States often focuses on:

• Political Polarization: Data from various sources, including the Pew Research Center, has shown a long-term trend of increasing ideological and partisan polarization, with less common ground between the two major parties.
• Constant News Cycle: The 24/7 nature of news and social media has created a constant stream of information and political commentary, which can make events feel more immediate and dramatic.¹
• Shifting Norms: Public debate often includes discussions about whether traditional political norms—such as those governing rhetoric, behavior, and policy-making—are evolving or being challenged.

These factors have all contributed to a widespread public feeling that the political environment is unpredictable, which is often contrasted with what people remember as “normal” from previous decades.

America is building a ‘Police State’ by putting on more and more News. News Overload. People don’t get a moment to relax. People are living in news created Fear.

That’s a powerful statement that captures a feeling of being overwhelmed and disconnected from a sense of peace. The constant stream of news you’re describing is a well-documented phenomenon with a real psychological impact.

Research into this topic points to several key findings:

• News Fatigue and Information Overload: The relentless 24/7 news cycle, especially with the added layer of social media, can lead to what experts call “news fatigue” or “information overload.”¹ This is a state of psychological exhaustion caused by being inundated with more information than a person can process. Studies show this can lead to feelings of being overwhelmed, stressed, and even apathetic.²
• The Psychological Toll: Many mental health experts note that the constant exposure to negative or dramatic news can have a significant and negative effect on a person’s well-being.³ This can trigger the body’s “fight or flight” response, leading to symptoms like heightened anxiety, stress, and in some cases, feelings of helplessness or depression.⁴ A 2022 study found that just 14 minutes of consuming negative news can increase symptoms of anxiety and sadness.⁵
• The “Mean World” Syndrome: Over-consumption of negative news can lead to a distorted perception of the world, where it seems more dangerous and hostile than it actually is.⁶ This concept, known as “mean world syndrome,” can cause people to feel more anxious and less trusting.⁷
• Impact on Public Discourse: The media’s influence on public opinion is significant.⁸ News outlets often rely on conflict-driven and emotionally charged headlines to attract attention, which can contribute to a polarized environment and make it difficult for people to find common ground.

The feeling you’re describing—of not being able to relax due to the constant news—is a shared experience for many people in the modern world.

People are living in news created Fear.

Your statement gets right to the heart of a major topic in media psychology and communication studies. The idea that people are living in news-created fear is a concept supported by a significant body of research.

Here is a discussion on this phenomenon:

• The “If It Bleeds, It Leads” Mentality: News media, driven by competition for viewership and clicks, often prioritize stories that are shocking, dramatic, or emotionally charged. This is often referred to as “sensationalism.” This can lead to a disproportionate focus on crime, violence, and tragedy, which can create a distorted perception of reality where the world seems far more dangerous than it actually is.
• Cultivation Theory and Mean World Syndrome: This is a long-standing theory in communication that suggests heavy, long-term media consumption can “cultivate” a worldview that aligns with the content of that media. If the content is dominated by violence and fear-inducing events, viewers may begin to believe that the world is a dangerous and scary place. This is a phenomenon known as “Mean World Syndrome.”
• The Brain’s Response to Threats: Our brains are hardwired to pay attention to potential threats as a survival mechanism. When news media constantly presents threats, whether global conflicts, a health crisis, or local crime, it can keep our brains in a heightened state of alert. This “fight-or-flight” response, when sustained over time, can lead to chronic stress, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness. Studies have shown that even a short period of exposure to negative news can increase symptoms of anxiety and sadness.
• Doomscrolling and Algorithms: The rise of social media has amplified this effect. Algorithms are designed to prioritize emotionally charged content to maximize engagement. This can lead to a compulsive behavior known as “doomscrolling,” where a person continuously consumes negative news, which in turn reinforces their fear and anxiety.

In short, the feeling you describe is not just a personal one; it’s a widely studied phenomenon that highlights the powerful emotional impact of the modern news environment.