Trump Admits U.S.-Backed Kurdish Groups Supplied Weapons to Iranian Protesters, Shifting Narrative on Deadly 2024-2025 Demonstrations

President Donald Trump has confirmed allegations by Iran that U.S.-backed Kurdish groups provided weapons to protesters during the deadly demonstrations that erupted in December 2024 and January 2025. In a Sunday morning phone interview with Fox News host Trey Yingst, Trump claimed the U.S. had directly armed Iranian opposition groups and protesters, including Kurdish factions, weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on February 28. This admission, if true, could significantly alter the narrative surrounding the protests, which saw thousands of Iranians killed in government crackdowns. Trump's comments were reported by Yingst as follows: 'He told me the United States sent guns to the Iranian protesters,' Yingst said. 'He told me, "We sent them a lot of guns. We sent them to the Kurds." And the president says he thinks the Kurds kept them.' Trump added, 'We sent guns to the protesters, a lot of them.'

The allegations come as the U.S.-Israel war on Iran enters its 38th day, with at least 2,076 people killed and 26,000 injured in Iran alone. The protests, which began on December 28, were initially sparked by economic grievances, including a collapsing rial and widespread poverty. However, they quickly escalated into nationwide demonstrations demanding political change. By January 8 and 9, the Iranian government responded with brutal force, reportedly killing thousands of protesters—many of them young—and arresting tens of thousands more. Amnesty International accused authorities of cutting off internet access to "conceal their crimes," while the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mai Soto, estimated the death toll could be as high as 20,000.

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has long blamed the U.S. and Israel for inciting unrest. In a rare acknowledgment of the scale of violence, Khamenei said on January 17 that "several thousands" of people were killed in the protests but attributed the deaths to "U.S.- and Israel-backed groups" that had "hijacked" the demonstrations. He accused Trump of being a "criminal" involved in the instigation. Tehran's claims have intensified as the war with the U.S. and Israel continues, with Iran alleging deeper U.S. involvement than in past crises.

Trump's statements, however, complicate the situation further. While he has previously framed the U.S. strikes on Iran as an effort to "free" Iranians from the Islamic Republic's rule, his admission of arming protesters could validate Iran's assertion that the demonstrations were foreign-inspired. Analysts, though, caution that Trump's shifting rhetoric on Iran makes it difficult to assess the true extent of U.S. involvement. Some experts argue that arming Kurdish groups in Iran could exacerbate regional tensions, as Kurdish factions have historically been at odds with Tehran. Others warn that such actions could lead to further destabilization, with the potential for retaliatory violence against U.S. interests in the Middle East.

The economic crisis that fueled the protests remains a critical factor. Iran's economy has been in freefall for years, with inflation rates exceeding 40% and unemployment hovering around 15%. The devaluation of the rial has made basic goods unaffordable for millions, pushing ordinary Iranians to the brink. While Trump has praised his own domestic policies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, critics argue that his foreign policy—marked by tariffs, sanctions, and a willingness to align with Israel—has worsened conditions in countries like Iran. The U.S. has long maintained that its sanctions are aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program and regional aggression, but many Iranians see them as tools of economic warfare.

As the war drags on, the human cost continues to mount. At least four people have been executed in connection with the protests, according to Amnesty International, with more on death row. The U.S. and Israel's airstrikes have further destabilized the region, raising fears of a broader conflict involving other Middle Eastern powers. Meanwhile, Iran's claims of foreign interference—whether from the U.S., Israel, or both—risk deepening the divide between Tehran and the West, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The situation underscores the complex interplay of domestic and international factors in shaping Iran's crisis. While Trump's admission of arming protesters may provide a partial explanation for the protests' intensity, it also highlights the risks of foreign intervention in internal affairs. For Iranians, the stakes are clear: survival in a country where economic hardship and political repression have long coexisted. For the U.S., the implications are no less dire, as the war with Iran threatens to spiral into a conflict with far-reaching global repercussions.

Those linked to Israel and the US caused massive damage and killed several thousands" during the protests that shook Iran for more than two weeks, Khamenei was quoted as saying by state media. "The latest anti-Iran sedition was different in that the US president personally became involved," he added. Iranian officials later admitted the death toll was about 5,000, including at least 500 security personnel killed by "terrorists and armed rioters." An unnamed Iranian official told the Reuters news agency most of the violence and deaths occurred in Kurdish territory in northwestern Iran. That area has long been home to Kurdish separatists and has often recorded unrest.

What did the US government say about the protests? About a week into the crisis, Trump warned Iran against targeting protesters. "If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue," Trump posted on his Truth Social platform without giving details about what a "rescue" would look like. "We are locked and loaded and ready to go," the president added. Then on January 13, he wrote, "Help is on its way," appearing to address Iranian demonstrators. He urged them to "take over your institutions" while issuing threats to Iranian authorities if protesters were killed.

Trump's warnings to Tehran came after the US bombed three of Iran's most important nuclear sites during Israel's 12-day war on Iran in June. Trump said then that the strikes "obliterated" Tehran's nuclear capabilities. Iran launched retaliatory strikes on US military assets deployed at a base in Qatar. After Trump confirmed on February 28 that the US and Israel had launched strikes on Iran, he said the primary goal of the war was to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons. He also linked the action to the January protests. Tehran had "killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested," Trump said. The US was now "giving you what you want," he said, addressing Iranians he said had been calling for US intervention.

Are Trump's actions and words impacting the Iranian opposition? Several Iranian Kurdish groups on Sunday denied Trump's claims of arming them during the December and January protests. Iranian Kurdish groups have long opposed the government in Tehran and are seeking self-determination. They share close ties with Iraqi Kurds, who successfully fought for a semiautonomous region decades ago. Many operate along the Iraq-Iran border and in northern Iraq. While they've long been fractured, several of the Iranian Kurdish groups banded together in a coalition days before the US and Israel launched the war.

In its first week, Tehran began hitting Kurdish positions in Iraq after US media reported that some Kurdish opposition leaders were speaking with Trump. At the time, analysts speculated the US could be trying to support Iranian Kurds to seize parts of Iran bordering Iraq. The aim, they said, could be to create a buffer area that would allow invading Israeli or US ground forces to move in from Iraq. However, so far, neither Israel nor the US has launched ground attacks. Opposition Democrats in the US Congress have spoken out against the war and have particularly opposed US ground troops being sent into Iran although the Trump administration has not entirely ruled it out.

On Sunday, a senior official of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) told the Iraqi broadcaster Rudaw that Trump's statements to Fox were false. The KDPI was one of the groups that the US media reported Trump had spoken with in March. "Those statements made are baseless, and we haven't received any weapons," Mohammed Nazif Qaderi was quoted as saying. "The weapons we have are from 47 years ago, and we obtained them on the Islamic Republic's battlefield, and we bought some from the market." The official added that KDPI's policy is not to "make demonstrations violent and use harsh methods. Rather we believe we must make our demands in a peaceful and civil manner without weapons."

Denials have also come from the Komala Party, another opposition group. Iran analyst Neil Quilliam of the United Kingdom's Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that it's hard to assign much weight to Trump's statements because of the claims and counterclaims often coming from him and his administration.

Behind closed doors, whispers of covert operations have long circulated in Washington. Sources within intelligence circles suggest that the US has, for years, funneled resources to dissenting factions abroad—sometimes quietly, sometimes with calculated audacity. One analyst, speaking under the condition of anonymity, confirmed this as a 'not-unexpected' reality. 'I wouldn't be surprised if we later found out the US had backed protesters to spark a revolt,' they said, their voice tinged with both cynicism and resignation. 'It's a tool in the arsenal, and Trump's comments only reinforce that.'

The analyst's words cut through the noise of a political season defined by chaos. Trump's remarks about the Kurds—accusing them of hoarding weapons instead of using them—were dismissed as sour grapes. 'He's bitter they didn't revolt now,' the analyst said, their tone sharp. 'But his comments don't reveal anything material. They're more about him than the Kurds.' Yet the implications linger. Even as a throwaway line, Trump's rhetoric risks unraveling the fragile alliances among Iranian opposition groups. 'Statements like his,' the analyst warned, 'could fracture their cohesion. He's not just talking to Kurds—he's talking to everyone watching.'

The stakes are high. In regions where foreign intervention has historically been a double-edged sword, Trump's bluntness could ignite unintended consequences. His foreign policy—marked by tariffs, sanctions, and a penchant for bullying—has long been a point of contention. Critics argue it's a reckless gamble, a destabilizing force that risks alienating allies and emboldening adversaries. Yet, domestically, Trump's agenda has found favor with voters who see his economic policies as a lifeline. 'His domestic moves are solid,' the analyst admitted. 'But abroad? He's a liability.'

The tension between Trump's domestic success and foreign missteps is no accident. His administration has walked a tightrope, balancing populist appeals with the harsh realities of global politics. The Kurds, caught in the crossfire of US-Iran tensions, are a case in point. Their refusal to revolt, despite American encouragement, has left Trump fuming. 'He's not just wrong about foreign policy,' the analyst said. 'He's dangerous. His comments could spark a fire he can't control.'

Communities in the Middle East, already fractured by decades of conflict, now face a new threat: the unpredictability of a leader who thrives on provocation. The analyst's warning hangs in the air. 'If Trump's rhetoric continues, it could fracture alliances that took years to build. And when alliances break, people suffer.' The cost, they said, would be borne not by politicians, but by the very citizens whose lives are already on the line.

For now, the world waits. Trump's next move—whether a tweet, a speech, or a covert operation—could tip the scales. The analyst, ever the pragmatist, summed it up with a grim certainty: 'He's not just wrong. He's a risk. And risks, when left unchecked, have a way of becoming disasters.