U.S. President Donald Trump never ceases to raise contentious issues that spark debate. Despite his administration being preoccupied with numerous hot regional and international files—from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, to wars in the Middle East (chief among them the Gaza war), to the trade wars Trump has waged against both allies and adversaries—he has intensified efforts to regain control of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, which the United States abandoned in July 2021.
In this context, on September 20, 2025, Trump warned of what he called “serious consequences” if the Taliban did not return Bagram to the United States. He wrote in a post: “If Afghanistan does not return Bagram Air Base to the side that created it, namely the United States, then bad things will happen.” A few days earlier, at a press conference with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London, Trump stated that his administration was working on regaining control of the base. Media reports also indicated that talks had been underway since at least March about returning Bagram to U.S. control.
This raises a critical question: Why is Trump so determined to reclaim Bagram Air Base more than four years after the American military withdrawal? Can he achieve this objective? And what are the positions of Afghanistan and other major powers in the region regarding this U.S. move?
Washington’s Motives
Several factors may lie behind Trump’s desire to reclaim Bagram Air Base:
1. The Geostrategic Importance of Bagram
Bagram Air Base is the largest military facility in Afghanistan that was used by the United States and NATO during their occupation. Located about 50 kilometers north of Kabul, it was originally built in the 1950s through cooperation between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union, later serving as a key military hub during the Soviet presence in the country. After the Soviets withdrew, the base was damaged in the civil war before the United States rebuilt and expanded it following its 2001 invasion of Afghanistan—enlarging it to some 77 square kilometers. It then became the largest U.S. base in the country and the central hub for operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
For two decades, Bagram was the heart of U.S. and NATO military operations. Air missions launched from there, joint operations were coordinated, and it served as a launchpad for bombers, drones, and transport aircraft. The base also housed weapons depots, military vehicles, and served as a logistics hub linking Afghanistan with U.S. bases in the Gulf and Central Asia.
Bagram’s importance lies not only in its size, facilities, and symbolic role, but also in two additional strategic factors. First, its proximity to China—less than 500 miles from the border—offers Washington a vantage point to monitor Beijing’s movements and pressure it, especially in western regions critical to China’s nuclear program. Trump himself highlighted this, stating: “One of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour from where China makes its nuclear weapons.”
Second, Washington fears that China could replace the U.S. in controlling Bagram, thereby expanding its influence in Central Asia. Several U.S. reports have claimed Beijing is eyeing the base as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Although Chinese officials have denied these reports, the “China factor” remains the most sensitive and pressing driver for Trump’s push to retake the base.
The same logic applies to Russia, given Bagram’s proximity to its southern borders, making it a potential outpost for monitoring Russian activities. Russia’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, dismissed Trump’s remarks on September 22, 2025, as “media hype,” likening them to his earlier Greenland claims. Similarly, for Iran, a U.S. presence at Bagram would give Washington a forward position should it decide to take military action against Tehran.
These strategic considerations had been debated by U.S. military leaders even before the 2021 withdrawal. In May 2021, former U.S. Special Forces commander Green Berin wrote: “It is unjustifiable to abandon the only airbase in the world located on the borders of China, southern Russia, eastern Iran, and nuclear-armed unstable Pakistan.” Despite such warnings, President Joe Biden pressed ahead with the chaotic withdrawal, widely seen as a near “escape.”
2. Financial and Economic Factors
From Trump’s perspective as a businessman, financial motives also loom large. The U.S. invested heavily in Bagram—about $68 million to modernize it after 2001, making it capable of hosting 10,000 troops. In 2006, another $96 million went into constructing a runway for heavy bombers and cargo planes, as well as fortified aircraft shelters. According to Pentagon reports, U.S. forces left behind military equipment worth $7 billion during the chaotic withdrawal.
Trump hinted at this during his press conference with Starmer: “We were going to leave Afghanistan, but we were going to leave it strong and with dignity—and we would have kept Bagram. We gave it away for nothing. By the way, we are trying to get it back.” As a businessman, Trump dislikes giving away assets without compensation. He also declared on January 20, 2025, that future U.S. aid to Afghanistan would be conditioned on the Taliban returning American military equipment.
Another financial angle is Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth. The country is rich in rare earth elements and precious metals, with deposits estimated at around $1 trillion. This includes 60 million tons of copper, 183 million tons of aluminum, and 2.2 billion tons of iron ore, along with gold, lapis lazuli, and valuable marble deposits. Trump may view Bagram as leverage to secure U.S. access to these resources.
3. Counterterrorism Operations
A further motive could be the use of Bagram as a hub for counterterrorism, particularly against ISIS-K (Islamic State–Khorasan), which has been resurging in the region and also clashing with the Taliban. Some reports suggest a U.S. presence at Bagram would allow Washington to strike ISIS-K and other groups more effectively in Afghanistan.
The “Carrot and Stick” Approach
Trump is unlikely to find it easy to retake Bagram from the Taliban, which fought for two decades to expel U.S. forces. Washington appears to be pursuing a dual strategy—threats on one hand and potential deals on the other. Trump warned: “If Afghanistan does not return Bagram Air Base… bad things will happen.” Yet he also suggested the U.S. might acquire the base with Taliban consent.
The Taliban, however, publicly rejected this notion. Afghan army chief Fasihuddin Fitrat stated: “Some say they are negotiating with Afghanistan to restore Bagram Air Base. But even an inch of Afghanistan’s land is non-negotiable.”
The Taliban leadership seeks international recognition and access to Afghanistan’s $7 billion in frozen U.S. assets. It also wants economic aid to revive the struggling Afghan economy. While this could provide some leverage for Washington, it is highly unlikely the Taliban would hand back Bagram. Limited security or economic arrangements may be possible, but not a full return of the base.
An alternative scenario for Washington would be military action to forcibly reoccupy Bagram. But this would require tens of thousands of troops, immense logistical effort, and costly repairs. The base would be a vulnerable American outpost in a landlocked country, threatened by ISIS-K, al-Qaeda, and Taliban fighters.
Conclusion
Given these realities, Trump’s push to retake Bagram Air Base appears more as a pressure tactic to secure economic and security concessions from the Taliban—whether access to Afghanistan’s mineral wealth or guarantees that Kabul will not grant strategic rights at Bagram to rivals like China—rather than a feasible plan for outright military reoccupation.
