On a tense weekend in late September 2025, the political temperature between the United States and Afghanistan spiked once more, as former U.S. President Donald Trump reignited debate over the fate of Bagram Air Base. Located just 64 kilometers north of Kabul, Bagram was once the centerpiece of America’s two-decade military campaign in Afghanistan. But since the U.S. withdrawal in 2021—a chaotic exit that left the sprawling facility in Taliban hands—the base has become a potent symbol of shifting power and wounded pride.
Speaking to reporters in Washington on Saturday, September 20, Trump made his intentions unmistakably clear: “We want it back, and we want it back right away. If they don’t do it, you’re going to find out what I’m going to do.” He added, “We’re talking now to Afghanistan” about the base, but pointedly declined to say whether he would consider sending U.S. troops to seize it. Pressed by journalists, Trump demurred, saying, “We won’t talk about that.” According to The Associated Press, Trump’s comments came just days after he hinted during a visit to the United Kingdom that the Taliban, who have faced mounting internal and external pressures, might be susceptible to American overtures: “We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us.”
The Taliban’s response was swift and unequivocal. On Sunday, September 21, chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid rejected Trump’s bid, urging the U.S. to act with “realism and rationality.” Mujahid stressed that Afghanistan’s sovereignty was non-negotiable, echoing a message that has been consistently communicated in bilateral talks. “It should be recalled that, under the Doha Agreement, the United States pledged that ‘it will not use or threaten force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan, nor interfere in its internal affairs,’” Mujahid posted on X (formerly Twitter). He added, “The U.S. needs to remain faithful to its commitments.”
The rejection was further reinforced by Fasihuddin Fitrat, chief of staff at the Taliban’s Defense Ministry, who declared in a televised speech, “Ceding even an inch of our soil to anyone is out of the question and impossible.” This line in the sand reflects the Taliban’s determination to use Bagram as a symbol of victory—one they have paraded before the world, notably during the third anniversary celebrations of their return to power in August 2024, when abandoned U.S. military hardware was displayed for all to see.
For Trump, Bagram’s strategic value is not merely about optics. He has repeatedly lamented its loss, pointing to its proximity to China as a missed opportunity for American influence. He has also used the base’s fate as a cudgel against his predecessor, Joe Biden, blasting the 2021 withdrawal as “gross incompetence.” Yet, as The Washington Post notes, the situation on the ground is far more complex than a simple tug-of-war over a military installation.
Since retaking power, the Taliban have faced a daunting array of challenges: economic crisis, international isolation, internal rifts, and persistent threats from rival militant groups like ISIS-K. Despite these pressures, the regime remains adamant that any engagement with Washington must be political or economic—not military. “Afghanistan and the United States need to engage without the United States maintaining any military presence in any part of Afghanistan,” said Zakir Jalal, a Taliban Foreign Ministry official, according to Army Times.
While the U.S. and the Taliban have no formal diplomatic ties, the two sides have maintained a pragmatic line of communication, particularly around hostage negotiations and prisoner exchanges. In March 2025, the Taliban released an American man who had been abducted more than two years earlier while traveling as a tourist. The Taliban later announced an agreement with U.S. envoys on a prisoner exchange as part of an effort to normalize relations, though details remain scant. Photographs released by the Taliban showed Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi meeting with Trump’s special envoy for hostage response, Adam Boehler. The White House, for its part, declined to comment on the specifics of the meeting or the deal.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s international standing remains precarious. Four years into its second stretch in power, the Taliban government has been officially recognized by only one country: Russia. According to The Washington Post, this recognition is likely tied to Moscow’s security concerns, particularly regarding ISIS-K, which was responsible for a deadly attack on a Moscow concert hall in 2024. “Everyone worries about ISK, but Russia really worries about it,” said Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. For the Kremlin, recognition may also be a way to set itself apart from the West and encourage others, including China, to follow suit.
Yet, most of Afghanistan’s neighbors and global powers have opted for a more cautious approach, engaging with the Taliban informally for practical reasons—be it migration management, humanitarian aid, or regional security. Many embassies in Kabul remain shuttered, and China, despite its extensive Belt and Road investments elsewhere, has been slow to commit to major infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s sanctioned foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, was recently unable to visit Pakistan and India due to U.N. sanctions that blocked the necessary travel waivers.
Diplomatic engagement with the Taliban is often described as pragmatic rather than ideological. “The Taliban are being dealt with as the rulers of Afghanistan, even if recognition has not yet been formally extended,” explained Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, a former Pakistani foreign secretary. In Europe, rising anti-immigrant sentiment has prompted some governments to seek the Taliban’s cooperation on deportations, particularly of Afghans convicted of crimes. Germany, for example, recently welcomed two Taliban representatives to assist with such efforts, though the German Foreign Ministry insists that its interactions are purely “technical.”
Despite these inroads, the Taliban’s emergence from isolation is fragile. Hard-line leaders in Kandahar have tightened restrictions on women’s and civil rights, making it difficult for Western governments to justify deeper engagement. Internally, the regime has dropped any pretense of moderation: last month, Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada ordered ministers to remove the “acting” designation from their titles, a symbolic move that signals confidence in their grip on power.
For many diplomats and analysts, the past four years have been a sobering lesson in the limits of optimism. Early promises of constitutional rule and good governance have faded, replaced by a reality in which engagement is confined largely to humanitarian and technical matters. “Engagement is confined mainly to humanitarian aid and migration management,” said Muhammad Amir Rana, a Pakistani political analyst. The idea that the Taliban could become a normalized government remains, for now, a distant prospect.
As the standoff over Bagram Air Base demonstrates, Afghanistan’s future—and its relationship with the United States—will likely be shaped by a mix of hard-nosed pragmatism, geopolitical rivalry, and the enduring shadow of its recent past. For now, both sides appear unwilling to cede ground, leaving the fate of Bagram—and the broader U.S.-Taliban relationship—hanging in the balance.