On 6 April 2025, reports emerged alleging that a U.S. military C-17 cargo aircraft landed at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. The aircraft, reportedly carrying military equipment and senior CIA officials, reignited debate over American intentions in the region. The report was swiftly denied, in an uncommon show of ageeement, by both Kabul and Washington, but the incident has once again thrown the spotlight on Bagram’s enduring symbolic and strategic significance.
Alleged Landing at Bagram: Unconfirmed Reports and Official Denials
On 6 April 2025, speculation surged following media reports that a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft had landed at Bagram Airbase. The claim was initially made by Afghan outlet Khaama Press, citing a Medium post by journalist Zark Shabab. The aircraft was allegedly carrying military equipment and senior U.S. intelligence personnel, including the CIA Deputy Chief, Michael Ellis. International media such as The Independent, Bulgarian Military, and StratNews Global repeated these claims without offering independent verification.
The Taliban swiftly denied the incident. Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, labelled the claims ‘propaganda aimed at destroying public minds’ (Ariana News, 7 April 2025). The U.S. Department of Defense has issued no statement to confirm or deny the landing. Independent observers stationed in north Kabul and the Shamali plains have also dismissed the claims, reporting no sightings of U.S. aircraft in Afghan airspace.
However, flight tracking data confirmed that a U.S. military aircraft—a Boeing C-17A Globemaster III with the call sign ‘MOOSE59’—did briefly enter Afghan airspace en route from Pakistan to Dushanbe, Tajikistan. While this added to the intrigue, no evidence suggests it landed at Bagram or any other Afghan airfield.
Bagram’s Strategic Legacy: From Cold War Outpost to Taliban Parade Ground
Bagram Airbase’s importance stretches back to the early Cold War. Constructed by the Soviet Union in the 1950s, it became a central launchpad for operations across South and Central Asia. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979–1989), the airbase served as a hub for logistics and air strikes against mujahideen fighters in provinces such as Kunar, Nangarhar, and Khost. At its peak, it was the only secure air facility reliably controlled by the Kabul regime.
Following the Soviet withdrawal, Bagram was transferred to the forces of Ahmad Shah Massoud in 1991. During the chaotic civil war of the 1990s, it was intermittently used for illicit arms deals but largely fell into disrepair. The U.S. military, following its invasion in 2001, would repair the airbase and and transform the sprawling site into something that resembled a city more than a mere command hub. For two decades, it hosted not just the US’ formidable aerial resources, but tens of thousands of troops, intelligence operations, and a controversial detention facility accused of torture. It even housed popular US fast food outlets, including Burger King and Pizza Hut. When the U.S. abruptly withdrew in July 2021, without informing the Afghan authorities, the base was quickly seized by the Taliban.
Bearing in mind its history as a nucleus of former military occupiers, the Taliban have since symbolically held annual military parades at Bagram. Soviet tanks on the one hand and U.S. Black Hawk helicopters alike, amongst other captured Western hardware are regularly displayed. These events have sparked outrage among U.S. veterans, many of whom view the parades as a deliberate provocation and painful reminder of a lost war. The base remains a potent symbol—of occupation, resistance, and unfinished geopolitics.
Trump and Bagram: Political Rhetoric Disguised as Strategy?
Between 2022 and 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump consistently invoked Bagram in public discourse. Central to his narrative is the claim—repeated but unverified—that China now controls the airbase. Trump has described Bagram as ‘exactly one hour’ from Beijing’s nuclear missile sites in western China, using this geographic reference to lambast President Biden’s withdrawal policy.
In a February 2025 Cabinet meeting, Trump stated: ‘The air base is exactly one hour from where China makes its nuclear missiles. So, we were going to keep Bagram.’ However, during his own administration, the U.S. signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, committing to a full military exit. There is no record of any plans under Trump to retain the base, casting doubt on the sincerity of his recent claims.
Trump’s references to Bagram serve multiple rhetorical objectives. Firstly, they support his unrelenting and escalating anti-China narrative, portraying the U.S. exit as a strategic blunder that ceded ground to a rival superpower. Secondly, he frames Bagram’s loss as a symbol of American decline and political weakness. The airbase serving as the location for the Taliban’s overt display of victory only add salt to the wounds of a blunted American chauvinism. Thirdly, there is Trump’s usage of Bagram as a campaign motif, promising to ‘regain control’ of U.S. assets and ‘retrieve’ military equipment. This plays well with nationalist voters and military families, although fact-checkers and intelligence sources have found no evidence to support his claim of Chinese control.
As previously illustrated, Trump’s broader foreign policy prioritises great power competition—particularly with China—while viewing Afghanistan as a secondary theatre. The framing of Bagram, resultantly, is more about domestic optics than actual strategic intent.
Regional Implications: Echoes Beyond the Runway
The renewed attention to Bagram, whether justified or not, reflects Afghanistan’s continued centrality in global strategic calculations. The implications extend well beyond Kabul.
From a domestic standpoint, the Taliban’s quick denial of the landing rumours is reflective of their central emphasis on sovereignty. Any perceived return of foreign forces, especially American, can weaken their legitimacy. Yet, the rumours could paradoxically bolster their narrative of defying the West.
Strategically, Bagram’s location remains vital for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions spanning Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, and parts of China. Whilst there is no concrete indication of U.S. re-engagement, the base retains latent strategic value in a rapidly shifting regional order.
Regionally, Trump’s claims—although inaccurate—affect perceptions in Beijing and Islamabad. China is highly sensitive to another episode of American proximity to its Western border, while Pakistan finds itself diplomatically overextended. The Pakistani military, once an oscillating ally of the Taliban, is now seeking to reposition itself as a U.S. ally. At the same time, it aims to antagonise the Taliban-led Afghan government in order to reclaim its strategic relevance and distract from mounting internal crises.
China, reportedly growing wary of Pakistan’s wonky balancing act and increasing domestic turmoil, has curtailed nuclear cooperation, leaving Islamabad’s balancing act increasingly precarious. In this volatile environment, even unverified reports such as the Bagram incident can reverberate far beyond cold, but inanimate, facts.
Moreover, this episode exemplifies the power of information warfare. A blog post on Medium snowballed into an international media cycle. Whether this was intentional disinformation or poor journalism, the case illustrates how easily unverified claims can influence geopolitics—especially in regions where ground-level verification is difficult.
Conclusion: Symbolic Power in the Age of Spectacle
Although there is no credible evidence to support the claim that a U.S. C-17 landed at Bagram in April 2025, the narrative has captured international attention. It has exposed the enduring strategic resonance of Afghanistan and the airbase that came to symbolise two decades of foreign military occupation. Donald Trump’s invocation of Bagram, however factually tenuous, resonates with anxieties over American decline and Chinese ascendancy. Whether or not any plane landed, the global reaction proves one thing: Bagram’s runway may be quiet, but its symbolism is deafening.