In September 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump made global headlines when he openly declared that his administration was negotiating with the Taliban to regain control of Bagram Airfield — once America’s largest military base in Afghanistan. Speaking at a joint press conference in London with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump linked his desire to return to Bagram to its proximity to China’s nuclear testing sites. Hours later, he doubled down on his claim on his own social media platform, warning of “very bad consequences” if the Taliban refused to hand the base back.
For many observers, Trump’s statement was more than just a campaign promise or diplomatic bargaining chip. It reopened a debate about the strategic importance of Bagram, America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, and the future of U.S. rivalry with China.
This article explores the history and significance of Bagram, why Trump wants it back, how the Taliban and the international community are responding, and what Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and fragile economy mean for the broader geopolitical game.
Bagram’s story begins in the 1950s, when the Soviet Union constructed a modest airstrip near Kabul. During the 1980s, as Soviet troops poured into Afghanistan, the base became a central hub of military operations. After Moscow’s defeat and withdrawal in 1989, Bagram fell into the hands of warring Afghan factions, suffering heavy damage during the civil war.
When the United States invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, Bagram was quickly rebuilt and transformed into the beating heart of the American war machine. At its peak, the base housed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops alongside tens of thousands of vehicles, helicopters, drones, and heavy equipment. It was, in every sense, a small American city transplanted into Afghan soil — complete with fast-food outlets, retail stores, and sprawling military facilities.
For Afghans, Bagram symbolized the two-decade-long U.S. presence. It also hosted the infamous Parwan Detention Facility, sometimes called “Guantanamo of Afghanistan,” where prisoners were held under harsh conditions. For Taliban fighters and Afghan resistance groups, Bagram was a daily target of rocket fire and suicide bombings.
By the time U.S. troops left in 2021, the base was not just a military installation but the embodiment of America’s failed project to remake Afghanistan.
Trump’s fixation on Bagram is not new. In 2019, he visited the base during Thanksgiving to rally troops. Later, in 2020, his administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. While the deal contained no clause about keeping Bagram, Trump has repeatedly claimed that he would have kept the base under American control — even as evidence shows otherwise.
Michael Waltz, a former Congressman and Trump’s national security adviser in his second term, captured this sentiment in a 2021 opinion piece warning that abandoning Bagram meant losing a “strategic foothold in America’s backyard of its greatest rivals.”
Trump now argues that Bagram’s location is critical because it lies only about an hour’s flight from China’s Lop Nur nuclear testing site in Xinjiang. Intelligence experts, however, point out that while Lop Nur is indeed a historical nuclear testing area, China does not manufacture nuclear weapons there. Instead, modern nuclear facilities are concentrated deep in central China.
Still, Trump’s rhetoric frames Bagram as a potential launch pad for containing China — whether militarily, through surveillance, or as leverage in a new Cold War.
Since retaking power in 2021, the Taliban have consistently opposed any foreign military presence. During the Doha negotiations, Taliban leaders insisted on complete U.S. withdrawal, and they continue to frame sovereignty as a non-negotiable principle.
Afghan analysts argue that if the Taliban were to agree to Trump’s proposal, it would undermine their legitimacy both as rulers and as a religious authority. The memory of two decades of foreign occupation remains fresh, making any return of U.S. forces politically toxic.
Yet, the Taliban face a collapsing economy and intense international isolation. Afghanistan’s foreign reserves — nearly $9 billion — remain frozen abroad, while sanctions on Taliban leaders block access to global finance. According to the UN Development Programme, 75% of Afghan households lack reliable access to food, water, and basic healthcare.
Trump and his allies appear to see this economic desperation as a bargaining chip. The idea is simple: trade economic relief for military concessions. But so far, the Taliban’s answer has been firm rejection.
Afghanistan is not just geopolitically strategic — it is also resource-rich. U.S. surveys estimate that the country holds over $1 trillion worth of minerals, including lithium, cobalt, copper, zinc, rare earth elements, and precious stones such as emeralds and lapis lazuli.
Lithium alone — a key component of electric vehicle batteries — has turned Afghanistan into a potential global hotspot for future mining projects. China, already the world leader in rare earth production, has shown interest in tapping Afghan resources.
For Washington, regaining Bagram is not only about military strategy but also about securing a foothold in Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. The base could act as a logistics hub for resource development, countering China’s dominance in global supply chains.
In a surprising twist, the Washington Post — traditionally critical of Trump — published an editorial in September 2025 suggesting that “a limited and organized U.S. return to Afghanistan is not a bad idea.” While rejecting recognition of the Taliban, the paper argued that regaining Bagram could serve American interests.
This rare alignment between Trump and a major liberal newspaper underscores a broader consensus in Washington: despite the failure of the Afghan war, strategic competition with China justifies reconsidering Afghanistan.
Military experts caution against exaggerating Bagram’s value. The U.S. already monitors China’s nuclear and military programs via satellites and electronic intelligence. Reoccupying Bagram would add little in terms of surveillance capability.
However, the base could provide a regional staging ground in case of a conflict with China over Taiwan, creating a second front that diverts Chinese resources away from the Pacific.
The real obstacle is diplomatic. None of Afghanistan’s neighbors — Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan — are eager to host American troops. Without local support, Bagram is America’s only theoretical option for a regional presence close to China’s western border.
While great powers debate Bagram, ordinary Afghans continue to suffer. Poverty, malnutrition, and lack of basic services plague the population. Corruption and mismanagement during the U.S. occupation left infrastructure projects unfinished, including failed attempts to build a modern mining sector.
The Taliban now face the paradox of seeking foreign investment while rejecting foreign influence. China has cautiously stepped in, accepting Taliban diplomats and exploring resource deals, while the West maintains sanctions. Afghanistan remains a pawn in a larger geopolitical chessboard.
Trump’s push to regain Bagram Airfield represents the latest chapter in the new Great Game unfolding in Central Asia. For Washington, the base symbolizes a lost strategic foothold; for the Taliban, it represents sovereignty; and for Beijing, it is a reminder of America’s encroachment.
Whether Trump can convince the Taliban to hand back Bagram is doubtful. Yet, the mere discussion highlights a reality: Afghanistan, far from being forgotten, remains a critical intersection of geopolitics, economics, and military strategy.
1. Why is Bagram Airfield important to the United States?
Bagram was America’s largest base in Afghanistan, serving as a hub for military operations, logistics, and intelligence. Its location near China and Central Asia makes it strategically valuable.
2. Did Trump originally plan to keep Bagram under U.S. control?
No. The 2020 Doha Agreement, signed under Trump’s administration, required the U.S. to withdraw all troops and hand over bases, including Bagram. Trump later claimed he would have kept it, but documents show otherwise.
3. How close is Bagram to China’s nuclear facilities?
Bagram is roughly one hour by air from Lop Nur in Xinjiang, a historic nuclear testing site. However, China’s main nuclear production facilities are located deeper inland.
4. Could the Taliban agree to let the U.S. return to Bagram?
Unlikely. The Taliban view foreign military presence as a violation of Afghan sovereignty. Allowing U.S. troops back would undermine their legitimacy and risk backlash from their supporters.
5. What role do Afghanistan’s mineral resources play in this debate?
Afghanistan holds vast reserves of lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earths, worth over $1 trillion. Both the U.S. and China are interested in securing access, making resources a hidden driver of strategic competition.
6. How does Bagram fit into U.S.–China rivalry?
While Bagram would not significantly improve U.S. surveillance, it could serve as a potential military foothold to pressure China from its western flank during a conflict.
7. What is the current state of Afghanistan’s economy?
Afghanistan faces near-collapse, with 75% of households lacking basic needs and millions of children malnourished. International isolation, frozen reserves, and sanctions worsen the crisis.
How to Analyze Rental Property Profitability: Foursquare Method Guide Investing in rental properties can be…
From Debt to Eight Figures: An Entrepreneur’s Journey to Success Introduction Ever wondered what it…
BIRR Strategy: The Best Real Estate Wealth-Building Method If you’ve ever wondered how real estate…
How Car Dealerships Rip You Off Using the Four Square Method Buying a car can…
Buying vs Leasing a Car: Which Is the Smarter Choice? When it comes to getting…
How Much Do You Need for Retirement? Understanding the 4% Rule Retirement planning can feel…