Standing next to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at a joint news conference in Buckinghamshire, President Donald Trump went off-script with a striking admission: the United States is “trying to get Bagram [air base] back” from the Taliban.
“We were going to leave Afghanistan, but we were going to leave it with strength and dignity, and we were going to keep Bagram, the big air base, one of the biggest in the world,” Trump said. “We gave it to them for nothing. We’re trying to get it back, by the way.”
He repeated the line several times, underscoring what he called the base’s strategic location near China. “We want that base back,” he told reporters.
Why Bagram still matters
Bagram airfield is no ordinary outpost. Built by the Soviets in the 1950s and expanded by the Americans after 2001, it became the beating heart of the US war in Afghanistan.
Location: Just 40 miles north of Kabul, and within striking distance of Central Asia, Iran, and western China.
Infrastructure: Dual runways (including one 3,500 meters long), hardened aircraft shelters, hangars, a detention facility, and capacity for thousands of troops.
Symbolism: For two decades, Bagram was synonymous with US power projection in South Asia.
When US troops vacated it in July 2021, weeks before Kabul fell, Afghan forces briefly held it before the Taliban swept in. Today, the base remains firmly under Taliban control.
Trump vs Biden: the shadow of 2021
Trump’s remark was as much a dig at his predecessor as it was a policy teaser. He has long argued that President Joe Biden’s 2021 withdrawal was “chaotic” and “so stupid” for giving up Bagram without conditions.
The former president insists he would have pulled US troops differently, keeping control of Bagram while ending America’s longest war. His latest comments suggest that option isn’t off the table, even four years later.
Could the US really “get it back”?
That’s the complicated part. For Washington to return to Bagram, it would need some kind of arrangement with the Taliban. Trump hinted at leveraging aid or concessions: “We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us.”
Theoretically, options could include:
Humanitarian or financial incentives (e.g., frozen Afghan assets, aid flows).
Security guarantees in exchange for counter-terrorism cooperation.
Transactional deals tied to sanctions relief.
But politically, striking a deal with the Taliban would be explosive in Washington, and diplomatically fraught with NATO allies.
The China factor
Trump repeatedly tied Bagram to its proximity to China. Analysts note that while Afghanistan doesn’t directly border China’s industrial heartland, the base sits closer to Xinjiang than US bases in the Pacific.
That makes it attractive for surveillance, power projection, and as a counterweight to Beijing’s Belt and Road investments in the region. It also explains persistent (though unconfirmed) speculation about Chinese interest in Bagram after the US left.
Allies, optics, and the road ahead
Trump’s remark puts a spotlight back on a base most of the world stopped talking about after 2021. If serious, any US move to re-establish presence at Bagram would reshape the regional chessboard:
It would test Taliban willingness to trade sovereignty for legitimacy.
It would alarm China, Iran, and Russia.
It could complicate relations with India and Pakistan, both deeply invested in Afghanistan’s future.
For now, Trump’s statement signals intent, not a signed plan. But the mere mention of 'getting Bagram back' revives debates about whether America truly closed the book on Afghanistan.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
