Trump called it an effort to fix “one of America’s greatest embarrassments

Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States, has reignited debate over America’s role in Afghanistan with a bold declaration: the U.S. should reclaim control of Bagram Air Base and recover billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment abandoned during the chaotic 2021 withdrawal.

In a series of fiery statements and policy directives, Trump has framed this move as a correction to what he calls “one of the greatest embarrassments in American history,” while critics warn it could plunge the U.S. back into a costly quagmire.

As his administration settles into power, this Afghanistan agenda underscores Trump’s intent to reshape U.S. foreign policy with a blend of assertive nationalism and strategic recalibration.

At the heart of Trump’s Afghanistan plan lies Bagram Air Base, a sprawling military hub north of Kabul that once served as the nerve center of U.S. operations in the region. “Joe Biden gave it away,” Trump declared during a recent press briefing. “I think we need to take it back.”

He argues that Bagram’s strategic value is unparalleled—not just for its historical role in the war on terror, but for its proximity to China’s nuclear missile production facilities, a mere hour’s flight away. For Trump, reclaiming the base is less about nostalgia and more about countering rising geopolitical threats in Central Asia.

The president has tasked his newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, with conducting a feasibility study for the operation. While details remain scarce, Trump hinted at leveraging Afghanistan’s reliance on roughly $2 billion in annual U.S. aid as a bargaining chip. “They get our money, and we get nothing in return,” he said. “That changes now.

Beyond Bagram, Trump has zeroed in on the vast stockpile of military hardware left behind during the Biden administration’s withdrawal. Valued at billions of dollars, this arsenal—including Humvees, Black Hawk helicopters, and advanced weaponry—has reportedly turned Afghanistan into what Trump calls “the world’s biggest arms dealer.” He alleges that the Taliban is cashing in by selling these assets on the black market, a claim supported by scattered reports from intelligence agencies.

“We’re going to get our stuff back,” Trump vowed, though he stopped short of explaining how. Analysts suggest that retrieving the equipment could require either diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban—an unlikely prospect given the group’s hostility—or a limited military incursion, a move that risks re-escalating U.S. involvement in a war-weary nation. The Pentagon has yet to comment officially, but insiders say Hegseth’s review will prioritize cost-benefit analyses and potential risks to American troops.

Trump’s Afghanistan rhetoric also carries a sharp edge of retribution. He has repeatedly slammed the 2021 withdrawal as “anarchic” and promised a full investigation into the decisions that led to the fall of Kabul. “The generals who botched this will be gone,” he said, signaling a purge of military leadership tied to the operation.

This pledge resonates with his base, many of whom view the withdrawal—with its tragic loss of 13 American service members at Abbey Gate—as a national humiliation.

The administration has also halted Afghan refugee resettlement programs and slashed foreign aid, moves that have drawn ire from humanitarian groups. Advocates argue that these cuts abandon Afghans who risked their lives assisting U.S. forces, leaving them vulnerable to Taliban reprisals. Trump, however, remains unapologetic, framing the policy as a necessary step to “put America first.”

Trump’s Afghanistan gambit is not without its skeptics. Military experts caution that reoccupying Bagram or recovering equipment could require boots on the ground—an unpopular prospect after two decades of war. “The logistics alone are daunting,” said retired General Mark Schwartz, a former Special Operations commander. “And the Taliban isn’t exactly going to hand over the keys without a fight.” Others question the strategic necessity, noting that Bagram’s relevance has waned in an era of drone warfare and shifting global priorities.

Politically, the plan plays to Trump’s strengths: decisive action, tough talk, and a rejection of perceived weakness. Yet it also risks alienating allies and reigniting domestic divisions over America’s role abroad.

European leaders, already wary of Trump’s brash diplomacy, have stayed silent on the proposal, while Congressional Democrats are gearing up to challenge what they call a “reckless fantasy.”

As Trump’s administration moves forward, Afghanistan could become a litmus test for his foreign policy vision—one that blends isolationism with selective interventionism. Whether this translates into concrete action or remains a provocative talking point is unclear. For now, the president seems content to keep the world guessing, blending bravado with ambiguity in a style that’s distinctly his own.