Trump says U.S. aims to retake Bagram as he warns on China's nuclear power

Former President Donald Trump disclosed during a public appearance with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer that the United States is seeking to retake Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, which fell under Taliban control after the U.S. withdrawal. Trump told a crowd that the base is “an hour away” from China’s nuclear weapons facilities, framing the location as strategically significant and tying the message to concerns about China’s military capabilities. The remarks were reported as breaking news and followed a long-running debate in Washington over how to respond to Afghanistan’s shifting security landscape.

The claim was made during a joint appearance in which Trump spoke alongside Starmer. He asserted that the United States is pursuing a plan to regain control of Bagram, a base that was abandoned by U.S. forces in July 2021 as the Taliban advanced across Afghanistan. The base had been a central hub for U.S. operations in the country, and its loss marked a turning point in the U.S. military effort there. Trump’s observation about the distance to China’s nuclear facilities was presented as part of a broader warning about geopolitical vulnerabilities and the need for American leverage in the region.

Trump’s remarks were carried by outlets that covered the appearance, including The Daily Mail, which summarized his comments and the setting in which he spoke with Starmer. The White House did not issue an independent corroboration of the specific claim about retaking Bagram at the time of the briefing, and officials cautioned that details of any military operation would be subject to national security considerations and procedural approvals. Nonetheless, the assertion underscored a broader thread in Trump’s public statements about American security commitments in Asia and the perceived urgency of countering China’s growing influence and capabilities.

The context surrounding Bagram’s status remains a defining feature of post-2001 American military involvement in Afghanistan. The United States withdrew from the base in July 2021, an exit that preceded the Taliban’s rapid return to power across much of the country and set the stage for ongoing questions about U.S. military presence and counterterrorism efforts in the region. The base, located near major population centers and previously used as a major hub for logistics, air support, and training, has since stood as a symbol of the abrupt and previously unforeseen consequences of that withdrawal.

Observers noted that Trump’s framing linked Afghanistan’s security landscape to broader strategic concerns about China, including the distance between U.S. military assets and potential adversaries. The message appeared aimed at emphasizing a willingness to recalibrate U.S. posture in Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region, where competition with China has become a defining feature of U.S. foreign policy in the mid-2020s. The remarks also reflected ongoing regional debates about how Washington should balance counterterrorism objectives with the interests and sovereignty of Afghanistan and its neighbors.

As with many high-profile statements from political figures, the claim drew quick attention from lawmakers and defense analysts who cautioned that any discussion of retaking a defunct installation would involve complex legal, political, and logistical considerations. There was no immediate public confirmation from the Pentagon or the State Department that any plan to retake Bagram under current conditions was underway, and experts emphasized that operational decisions of this kind would require careful assessment of risk, authorization, and international implications.

The incident highlights how Afghanistan remains a touchstone in debates over American influence abroad, even as the focus of U.S. security policy has increasingly shifted toward challenges posed by China, Russia, and other geopolitical dynamics. Trump’s remarks contribute to a broader narrative about maintaining leverage in regions that influence global stability, energy security, and alliance commitments. They also underscore the tension between signaling strong deterrence and the practical realities of conducting major military operations in a landscape shaped by evolving threats and rapid political change.

This development is breaking news, and additional information is expected as authorities review the statements, verify details, and determine whether any formal steps or policy shifts are in motion. Readers should expect updates as more official information becomes available and as the story develops.