President Donald Trump said Thursday, September 18, 2025, that his administration is “trying” to get Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan “back” from the Taliban, reviving debate over the base that once served as the hub of U.S. military power in the country.
Speaking alongside U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer in England, Trump criticized the 2021 withdrawal under President Joe Biden and described his comment as “a little breaking news.”
“We’re trying to get it back,” Trump told reporters. “We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us.” He did not specify whom he meant by “they,” or what leverage Washington intends to use.
Trump added that the airfield’s location is strategically important, saying it is “an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.” The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the president’s claim.
Why Bagram matters
Bagram sits about 40 miles north of Kabul, with dual runways and hardened infrastructure from two decades of war.
For the United States, the base offered high-altitude runways for heavy transports, a prison complex, and space for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. Its location provided a launch point for counterterrorism missions across Afghanistan and a logistics node for partners working with U.S. Central Command.
Trump’s remark underscores a persistent view in parts of the national security community that abandoning Bagram compounded the risks of the 2021 exit. Advocates of a return argue that a U.S.-controlled Bagram would reestablish a vantage point near Central Asia, increase pressure on transnational terror groups, and give Washington options if regional threats expand.
Critics respond that reacquiring the base would require political recognition or coercion, both of which carry heavy costs and complex legal questions.
What leverage could the U.S. use
Trump hinted that the Taliban “need things from us,” implying possible bargaining chips. Those could include humanitarian aid, access to frozen Afghan central bank assets under U.S. control, or pathways to diplomatic normalization.
Any negotiation would run into human rights concerns and terrorism designations, since the Taliban government remains unrecognized by the United States and is sanctioned for abuses and ties to extremist groups.
In March, U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler met Taliban officials at Kabul International Airport as part of an effort to secure the release of George Glezmann, according to prior reporting. That meeting, described by sources as the first direct engagement between the current administration and Taliban leaders since Kabul fell in 2021, suggested limited channels are open for transactional talks.
The Associated Press later reported that Taliban officials signaled interest in normalizing ties after years of diplomatic isolation tied to rights violations. Boehler and former U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi and discussed bilateral issues, citizen matters, and potential investment opportunities, according to a Taliban statement at the time.
Strategic calculus and the China angle
Trump tied Bagram’s value to China’s military footprint, saying the base is roughly an hour from areas where Beijing develops nuclear weapons. Analysts note that western China’s sensitive sites sit across the border from Afghanistan, making Afghanistan’s airspace and ground access strategically relevant even if direct overflight would require additional permissions.
A U.S. presence at Bagram could, in theory, enhance situational awareness on regional threats, improve logistics for humanitarian operations, and complicate the plans of hostile actors that exploit ungoverned spaces.
However, any attempt to reenter Bagram would collide with hard realities. The Taliban would likely demand concessions that Washington has resisted, including sanctions relief or formal recognition. China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan would scrutinize renewed U.S. basing in Afghanistan and might respond with diplomatic or covert pressure on the Taliban to block it.
Congress would demand clear legal authority, a mission statement, and a funding plan before endorsing any footprint on Taliban-held ground.
How we got here
The initial drawdown of U.S. troops began in March 2020 under the first Trump administration after a deal with the Taliban that set May 1, 2021, as the deadline for full withdrawal.
Biden extended the timeline to late August 2021, and the Taliban swept through provincial capitals in the months before Kabul’s collapse. Open-source reporting at the time documented rapid Taliban gains and an Afghan government unable to hold major population centers.
The last U.S. troops departed on August 30, 2021, ending a 20-year mission as scenes of chaos at the Kabul airport shocked world audiences.
Since then, the Taliban have ruled without international recognition, facing sanctions, frozen assets, and allegations of systematic rights abuses, especially against women and girls. Some humanitarian assistance has continued through international organizations, while the United States has kept narrow diplomatic channels open for hostage cases and counterterrorism deconfliction.
