U.S. President Donald Trump has said his administration is seeking to re-establish control over Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, four years after American forces vacated the facility during the 2021 withdrawal.

Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on 18 September, Trump linked the push to Bagram’s proximity to Chinese nuclear-related sites and suggested talks with the Taliban are under way. He subsequently warned on social media that “bad things” would happen if Afghanistan did not return the base to the United States.

Bagram, about 40 kilometres north of Kabul and built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s, was the largest U.S. installation in Afghanistan and a central command hub during two decades of U.S. and NATO operations. It fell under Taliban control after the hurried American exit in August 2021. The airfield includes an 11,800-foot (3,600-metre) runway capable of handling bombers and heavy transports.

At the joint press conference on 18 September, Trump described Bagram as one of the world’s largest airbases with a runway of heavy concrete and steel. He added that the site is “an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons,” framing the base as a platform of relevance to U.S.–China competition. Reporters and analysts have noted that his remarks appear to refer to China’s Lop Nur nuclear test area in Xinjiang, though weapon production is generally assessed to occur elsewhere. The Pentagon’s 2024 China military report estimated that Beijing’s stockpile surpassed 600 operational warheads by mid-2024, a figure widely cited in open-source assessments.

Trump’s position has hardened since the London appearance. In a post on 20 September he wrote: “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!” The statement followed press remarks that the United States is “trying” to regain control of the facility. He did not rule out the use of force when questioned by reporters on 20 September, while saying further actions would be disclosed if demands were unmet.

The Taliban have rejected the notion of any renewed U.S. military presence. Officials have said Afghanistan is prepared to pursue political and economic ties with Washington, but not to host foreign troops. A foreign ministry representative wrote that engagement should be “based on mutual respect and shared interests,” and referred to commitments against interference.

Trump and U.S. officials have indicated limited contacts with the Taliban centred on detainee issues. On 13 September, Adam Boehler, the U.S. president’s special envoy for hostage affairs, met Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi in Kabul; both sides signalled an intent to continue discussions. There has been no public confirmation from Washington of any formal negotiation to restore U.S. control over Bagram, beyond Trump’s comments.

Operational and political constraints are significant. Current and former U.S. officials cited by Reuters and other outlets say retaking and holding Bagram would likely resemble a new intervention, requiring more than 10,000 troops and advanced air and missile defences to make the site viable against threats ranging from Islamic State-Khorasan to potential long-range fire from regional actors. Even with Taliban consent, sustaining a large garrison on a single inland base would demand assured supply lines and overflight arrangements.

For Kabul, allowing U.S. forces back would cut against the movement’s core narrative that the 2021 takeover ended foreign occupation, and would complicate relations with neighbours sensitive to an American foothold near their borders. Afghanistan remains largely isolated diplomatically and seeks economic relief; a reversal on basing would carry domestic and external costs. Public statements from Taliban officials since 19 September have therefore left no opening for foreign troops while keeping economic and political dialogue on the table.

Bagram’s status also features in U.S. domestic debate over the 2021 withdrawal. Trump has criticised the exit and the loss of equipment and facilities, including the embassy compound in Kabul. Supporters of a return view Bagram as an anchor for counter-terrorism and for monitoring China; critics argue it would be an exposed outpost without wider allied basing and would risk escalation if threats were issued and then tested. As of 21 September, the White House and State Department had not issued detailed public positions beyond generic statements that the Pentagon regularly reviews contingencies and will execute tasks as ordered by the president.

In summary, Trump has elevated Bagram as a strategic objective linked to China and has warned of unspecified consequences if the base is not returned. The Taliban’s position remains that no foreign military presence will be permitted. Without a political breakthrough, a legal framework, and a substantial and secure force posture, a U.S. re-entry appears unlikely in the near term despite the base’s enduring strategic attributes.