Mysterious US military flight to Afghanistan sparks speculation about Bagram air base
According to local media reports, the C-17 aircraft took off from Doha's Al Udeid military base, arrived in Afghanistan via Pakistan on Sunday, and landed at Bagram.
The aircraft was said to be carrying senior US intelligence officials, including CIA deputy chief Michael Ellis, and military equipment, Khaama Press reported.
The outlet claimed the Taliban had handed over the base, which president Donald Trump expressed interest in reclaiming during his presidential election campaign, to the US.
The claim was swiftly denied by the Taliban's chief spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid, who described it as 'propaganda'. He said the Taliban had complete control of the air base.
🚨A US Air Force C-17, originating from Al Udeid Air Base, descended to around 20,000 feet over Tajikistan on April 5 (DID NOT LAND IN BAGRAM AIRBASE), hovering briefly for about 1-2 hours near the Nurek Dam at a ground speed of 170 knots before re-entering Afghanistan's airspace… pic.twitter.com/PnjVsKWVFR
— Qais Alamdar (@Qaisalamdar) April 8, 2025
An American takeover of the base was 'impossible', Mr Mujahid said, and 'there is no need for any country's military presence in Afghanistan at present and the Islamic Emirate will not allow such an action'.
Zia Ahmad Takal, a deputy spokesperson at Afghanistan's foreign ministry, issued a denial as well. 'This news is not correct,' he told The Independent.
The Pentagon is yet to comment on the reports, but a US defence source told The Independent that 'there is no US military presence in Afghanistan'.
US Airforce C-17 pic.twitter.com/sTLPoQavxv
— Qais Alamdar (@Qaisalamdar) April 5, 2025
The Bagram air base, north of the capital Kabul, served as the command node for American and allied Nato forces for two decades as they waged a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The base, the size of a small city, was captured by the Taliban soon after Western troops vacated it, shutting off power and slipping away as they withdrew from the country, in the summer of 2021.
Bagram has two runways and over 100 parking spots for fighter jets known as revetments because of the blast walls which protect each aircraft. One of the runways, built in 2006, measures 12,000ft long.
It also boasts a passenger lounge, a 50-bed hospital and hangar-sized tents filled with supplies like furniture.
Mr Trump has repeatedly talked about taking back control of the Bagram base. He claimed last month that Washington planned to return to the base because it now allegedly hosted Chinese troops.
'I am the one who got our military presence to under 5,000 but we were going to keep Bagram, not because of Afghanistan but because of China, because the air base is exactly one hour from where China makes its nuclear missiles,' Mr Trump said. 'So, we were going to keep Bagram.'
Bagram was one of the largest air bases in the world, complete with 'one of the biggest and most powerful runways', the US president added. 'And we gave it up. And you know who is occupying it at the moment? China. Because Biden gave it up. So, we are going to keep that.'
At the time, Mr Mujahid dismissed Mr Trump's comments as 'emotional' and said US officials should 'refrain' from making "statements based on unsubstantiated information'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
When will critics admit Trump's trade strategy is working?
Nearly four months after President Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of higher reciprocal tariff rates on major U.S. trading partners, the dust has settled and the strategy is working. Over the last few weeks, countries have, one by one, been offering to significantly lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers on US goods entering their markets, while pledging significant purchases from and productive investments in the United States. So far, these nations have included the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines, with more deals anticipated in the coming days. In each case, these countries have accepted a higher base tariff rate from the United States while lowering their rates to zero or near-zero. These higher US rates will help rebalance the enormous deficits the United States runs with nearly all its major trade partners. For decades, US leaders turned a blind eye to rampant abuses by our trade partners and ever-widening trade deficits that have hollowed out American industry, destroyed millions of jobs and undermined our long-term economic stability. President Trump has done more than anyone thought possible to address these imbalances without major disruption, price increases or job losses. The leverage offered by tariffs has been key in achieving these agreements. Relying on the old system, governed by a slow, outdated and prejudicial World Trade Organization, to address trade abuses and imbalances was completely ineffective. The agreements establishing that organization hadn't been updated since 1994, and litigation often dragged out for several years — and by then, the damage was done. Unilateral action was essential to resolve US trade imbalances, protect our producers and workers, and make American businesses competitive in world markets again. The new trade paradigm introduced by the Trump administration is already changing market incentives worldwide. In a recent speech, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer noted that American and foreign companies have pledged over $5.5 trillion in investments to expand production in the United States. These investments will create untold numbers of jobs as companies build new production facilities and fill them with American workers. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Furthermore, the deals struck by the Trump administration offer a path forward for addressing the main perpetrator of world trade imbalances: China. While the United States put higher tariff rates on China in 2018, China has been able to avoid those tariffs by redirecting supply chains through third countries. This made it imperative to widen the scope of American tariffs, to ensure goods from non-market economies like China do not make it into our market at favorable rates through friendlier trade partners like the Philippines and Mexico. Language in the initial trade deal frameworks indicates our trade partners will now work with us to deter China's trade abuses. Lastly, Trump's tariffs will ensure that the United States maintains and strengthens its industrial base. Tariffs aimed at key strategic sectors like steel and aluminum, automobiles, rare earths, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and drones will ensure our competitors that heavily subsidize such sectors will not undermine US industries, especially those essential to the future of our economic and national security. When Trump announced new reciprocal tariff rates on our trading partners in April, economists, commentators and free traders of all stripes were quick to predict the worst. But even with the prospect of tariffs increasing further in the coming weeks, market and consumer sentiment remains optimistic, with even former naysayers hedging on their earlier dire predictions. What is clear now is that the United States has a path to stabilize its trade balance, strengthen economic opportunities for the middle class, and bolster our economic security — without catastrophic consequences. Mark DiPlacido is a policy advisor at American Compass.
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Reveals Planned Changes to US Citizenship Test, H-1B Visas
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The new director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) said Friday that the U.S. citizenship test is too easy and needs to be changed. Joseph Edlow told The New York Times that the Trump administration was also looking at making changes to the H-1B work visa, which has been at the center of the legal immigration debate for several months now. "I really do think that the way H-1B needs to be used, and this is one of my favorite phrases, is to, along with a lot of other parts of immigration, supplement, not supplant, U.S. economy and U.S. businesses and U.S. workers," Edlow told the Times. Why It Matters The Trump administration has previously given little indication of plans to update or modernize the legal immigration system, focusing on illegal immigration enforcement instead for much of its first six months. Edlow's comments mark a change in messaging from USCIS as it seeks to further deliver on President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. New US citizens recite the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2025. New US citizens recite the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2025. KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Edlow said that he felt the U.S. citizenship test was "not very difficult" right now, and allowed immigrants seeking to naturalize to easily memorize the questions and answers. He argued this was not really "comporting with the spirit of the law". The test was largely random and non-standardized before 2008, when the Bush administration introduced a standardized civics test that required applicants to correctly answer six out of 10 questions, out of a possible 100. During the first Trump administration, that number was raised to 128, and the number of correct answers to 12 out of 20, before the Biden administration switched it back in March 2021 and a planned redesign announced in the last few years was canned after largely negative feedback in late 2024. Edlow told the Times that USCIS plans to return to a 2020-era style test soon. As for the H-1B visa, which has been widely criticized as being used by companies favoring foreign workers on low wages over American-born employees, Edlow said there was a place for the program, but it should favor companies paying higher wages instead. It was recently revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees USCIS, was looking at changing the current lottery-style system for H-1B selection and replacing it with a "weighted selection process" that would help with Edlow's approach. In January, the Institute for Progress, a nonpartisan think tank examining innovation policy, floated the idea of eliminating the H-1B lottery. It argued that the economic value of the visa program could be increased by 88 percent if applicants were evaluated based on seniority or salary. Despite the America-first messaging from the White House and those within the MAGA movement wanting to see all immigration cut off, Edlow made it clear in his interview that immigration could benefit the U.S. if managed correctly. What People Are Saying David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, told Newsweek: "Assigning H-1B visas only to the highest wage offers would favor older workers who may retire or leave the country, while eliminating the main path for college grads to stay in America. "It's strange to say that the test is easy when it's a test most Americans would fail." Edlow, in his interview with the Times: "I think it absolutely should be a net positive, and if we're looking at the people that are coming over, that are especially coming over to advance certain economic agendas that we have and otherwise benefit the national interest — that's absolutely what we need to be taking care of." Connor O'Brien, a researcher at the Economic Innovation Group, previously told Newsweek: "The H-1B is the primary way through which we bring in skilled immigrants and we only have 85,000 visas to give away each year. Giving away these visas randomly is an enormous, missed opportunity to attract truly scarce talent that would benefit American businesses and communities." What's Next USCIS cannot technically change the way it issues visas or runs the citizenship test without getting permission from other agencies or even Congress, where lawmakers are proposing bipartisan changes to the immigration system overall.
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Education Department releases $7 billion held from schools nationwide
July 25 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Education finished releasing more than $7 billion in funds for school programs nationwide after a pause at the start of July, an agency spokeswoman said Friday. Last week, $1.3 billion was released with more than $6 billion remaining. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget was reviewing the rest. "OMB has completed its review of Title I-C, Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A ESEA funds and Title II WIOA funds, and has directed the department to release all formula funds," said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications for the Education Department, said in an email to media, including The Hill and ABC News. "The agency will begin dispersing funds to states next week." Earlier, the Education Department didn't disperse routine payments for schools that include money for after-school and summer activities, classes for non-English learners and adults, and teacher preparation. The funding was authorized by Congress and was due July 1, before the start of the school year. The school districts were notified of the pause one day before. U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican serving West Virginia, had pushed for the funds' release. She and nine colleagues had written a letter to OMB. "This supports critical programs so many West Virginians rely on and I made that clear to OMB Director Vought," Capito posted on X. In a news release Friday, she said: "The programs are ones that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support like after-school and summer programs that provide learning and enrichment opportunities for school aged children, which also enables their parents to work and contribute to local economies, and programs to support adult learners working to gain employment skills, earn workforce certifications, or transition into postsecondary education." Also, 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed suit July 14 seeking the funds' release. A coalition of school districts, teachers' unions, nonprofits and parents sued Monday in Rhode Island. Originally, the White House said the pause was because money was going to the "radical left-wing agenda." Secretary of Education Linda McMahon told ABC News on Thursday: "We want to make sure that we have the right focus on what we're trying to do with our students." She said it could be released by the end of the year. An administration official told The Washington Post that unspecified "guardrails" were put on the money so they align with the policy. More than 200 superintendents went to senators' offices to seek an end to the freeze. David Schuler, executive director of the School Superintendents Association, applauded the change. "On the heels of our survey released Tuesday, detailing how disruptive withholding these funds would be for our nation's students, we thank our members and allies on the Hill," Schuler said in a statement. "We appreciate their tireless advocacy, communication and outreach to the Administration about the importance of releasing these critical funds." The Education Department's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget is $66.7 billion, which is a 15.3% reduction , or $12 billion, from the previous year. President Donald Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department, with states and other federal agencies taking over the dispersal of funds, including student loans and other programs. On July 14, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for mass firings by lifting an injunction while litigation proceeds. In March, the agency's workforce was slashed in half, with 1,378 terminated. The high court didn't rule on abolishing the agency, which must be approved by Congress.
