One of that factors is a legacy of the last weeks of the Obama administration, when targeting procedures were changed, removing the requirement for each sortie to be approved by a central “strike cell” in Baghdad. That has meant that Iraqi forces fighting on the ground have been able to call in an air strike from a coalition member with planes in the area. It does not have be approved by the coalition as a whole. The coalition also includes the UK, Netherlands, France, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Jordan. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates also take part in air strikes in Syria.

And

Another factor is the growing intensity of the fight for Mosul, where Iraqi forces supported by coalition air power are taking on Isis militants bottled up in the west of the city, home to 200,000 civilians whom Isis is using increasingly as human shields. But even as Isis fighters blend in with Mosul residents, the coalition is using bigger bombs and less accurate means of delivering them.

From the article, that you posted. The incredible irony of people saying “he takes all the credit for good and none of the bad”, and here we have “its all Trump’s fault!”

“Those closer to the fight are more likely to call in lethal force and are less likely to follow a value-based approach,” Zenko said. He said that rhetoric coming from the leadership in Washington could also be having an effect. “A change in the rules of engagement does not have to be a change in doctrine,” he said. “It can just be a change in tone and command climate. Mattis has again and again talked about an annihilation campaign, and that can an influence lower down.” This has been stated often, Trump gives more control to the military to carry out operation and therefore will adhere to the people closer to the war, and in greater threat more often.