In a characteristically vague warning that ‘bad things are going to happen,’ US President Donald Trump on Sunday demanded that the Taliban hand back control of the sprawling Bagram Air Base near Kabul.
At a London press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump announced that his administration was negotiating the return of the base, framing it as ‘a little breaking news’ and implying that Afghanistan’s dependence on US aid offered the necessary leverage.
Trump’s demand, rooted in his long-standing fixation on reversing the 2021 withdrawal he routinely calls a ‘total disaster’, marks a sharp escalation in post-withdrawal relations with the Taliban and hints at a potential bid to reestablish a US military foothold in a country it left after two decades of futile war.
The announcement was met with a swift and public rebuke from Kabul, as Taliban government officials cited the very Doha Agreement brokered under Trump to assert their sovereignty, setting the stage for a high-stakes diplomatic clash that experts warn could spiral into renewed conflict.
Trump’s refusal to rule out redeploying troops, stating in the Oval Office, ‘We’ll see what happens with Bagram’, further heightened tensions, exposing the volatile blend of personal grievance, strategic ambition, and domestic political theater driving this renewed foreign policy push.
Framed by the administration as a necessary response to Chinese expansion in the region, the push for Bagram raises stark questions about the lessons of America’s costly two-decade war and the viability of imposing military solutions on a nation that has repeatedly resisted foreign occupation.
Critical reactions to the ultimatum
The Taliban government’s response to Trump’s demand for Bagram’s return was swift, unified, and unequivocal, dismissing the idea as both impossible and a violation of international agreements.
Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, in a statement posted on social media, urged Washington to pursue ‘realism and rationality,’ explicitly invoking the 2020 Doha Agreement, under which the US pledged not to threaten Afghanistan’s territorial integrity.
Defense Minister Fasihuddin Fitrat struck an even harder line, declaring that no deal over ‘even an inch of Afghanistan’s soil is possible’ and vowing to fight for ‘another 20 years’ if necessary, a stark reminder of the resilience that ultimately forced a so-called superpower’s humiliating exit after 20 long years.
The Taliban’s firm stance underscores the dramatic shift in power dynamics since 2021. No longer an insurgent movement, they now govern the country, and their rejection of Trump’s demand highlights the immense political and military cost any attempt to retake Bagram by force would carry.

In Washington and across allied capitals, the announcement was met with skepticism and unease.
US officials, speaking anonymously, cautioned that reoccupying Bagram would not be a matter of simply turning a key, but would require a massive military commitment, potentially over 10,000 troops and advanced air defenses to repel insurgent attacks, amounting to a re-invasion.
International reaction reinforced the diplomatic isolation the US could face. China, frequently cited by American hawks as justification for Bagram’s strategic value, denied any designs on the base and reaffirmed respect for Afghan sovereignty, while likely reading Washington’s push as an overt containment strategy.
Russia, with its own stakes in the region, praised the Taliban’s principled stance. Even close and traditional US allies withheld support. Starmer, standing beside Trump during the announcement, pointedly declined to comment on the matter.
Public reaction was equally polarized. Supporters hailed Trump’s demand as “strong leadership” vital for national security, while critics condemned it as a reckless “temper tantrum” threatening to entangle the US in another neo-colonial misadventure.
The debate reflects a country still grappling with the trauma of the 2021 withdrawal. Yet regional experts and former military leaders converge on one point: any attempt to re-seize Bagram would alienate allies, validate the Taliban’s resistance narrative, and risk plunging the US back into a costly, open-ended conflict with no clear exit.

The full PressTV report