Trump Signals Potential US Return to Bagram Air Base to Counter China

Washington: Former President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that the United States could return to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, four years after the chaotic withdrawal left it in Taliban hands. Speaking alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump framed the potential return as a strategic move to counter China, highlighting that the base is located just an hour from Chinese nuclear facilities.

“We’re trying to get it back,” Trump said when asked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While he called it “breaking news,” the notion is not new, and the White House has not confirmed whether the Pentagon has concrete plans to reoccupy the sprawling facility, which played a central role in America’s longest war.

Trump’s own administration negotiated the initial withdrawal deal with the Taliban, while the 20- year conflict formally ended under President Joe Biden amid disorder: the US -backed Afghan government collapsed, a bombing killed 13 American troops and 170 others, and thousands of Afghans rushed Kabul’s airport seeking evacuation. Trump and other Republicans have consistently portrayed the withdrawal as a failure of American leadership, claiming it signalled weakness and emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.

Trump framed keeping Bagram as a matter of strength and national dignity. “We were going to keep Bagram Air Base, one of the biggest air bases in the world. We gave it to them for nothing,” he said, suggesting the Taliban could be pressured to allow a US return due to their economic and political vulnerabilities.

The strategic focus is explicitly China. Trump emphasised Bagram’s proximity to Chinese nuclear facilities, presenting military presence as a tool to contain Beijing’s rising influence. This stance, however, contrasts sharply with his direct economic and diplomatic engagement with China, as he negotiates with President Xi Jinping over issues including TikTok’s US operations, trade, and technology access.

TikTok, whose Chinese parent ByteDance must spin off its US operations, has become a symbol of US economic and technological leverage. Officials say a framework agreement on ownership has been reached, though oversight of user data remains under negotiation. Trump has framed this as a demonstration of US control, yet the underlying logic mirrors realpolitik: negotiate when leverage serves economic and political interests, display force when projecting strategic dominance.

Analysts note the tension in this dual approach: military presence in Afghanistan is a measure of symbolic strength, while economic negotiation with a nuclear-armed rival is framed pragmatically. Trump’s perspective reflects a selective conception of power: symbolic force asserts credibility, while economic engagement secures tangible benefits.

Other unresolved issues with China include technology export restrictions, US agricultural sales, and the fentanyl trade. Trump’s tariffs and trade war have already strained American farmers, with exports to China down 53 per cent this year and US sorghum sales plunging 97 per cent. Farmers remain anxious about the outcome of talks, highlighting the domestic costs of strategic bargaining.

Meanwhile, US-Taliban interactions remain limited, including the release of an American hostage in March and discussions over possible detainee swaps. Trump suggested that the Taliban’s dependence on foreign aid and need for legitimacy could make them amenable to a US return.

The Pentagon and US Central Command deferred questions on Bagram to the White House, which has not commented on any renewed presence. Trump’s comments illustrate a recurring feature of American foreign policy: the simultaneous projection of military power in one arena to signal strength and containment, alongside diplomatic and economic engagement with the same strategic rivals. In this calculus, Bagram becomes less about Afghanistan and more a lever in the broader contest for influence with China, a clear demonstration of the US approach to global power politics, blending coercion, negotiation, and symbolism.