RESISTANCE IS BRILLIANT

Man follows National Guard around D.C. playing “The Imperial March” from “Star Wars”

Rachel Kiley
Fri, September 19, 2025 

DAILY DOT



@freedc20009/TikTok

The National Guard's deployment into Washington, D.C., has been highly controversial, to say the least. But one person's method of dealing with it is drawing particular attention online.

So far, nine videos have been posted to TikTok in which @freedc20009 follows various members of the National Guard around the city while blasting "The Imperial March" from Star Wars. If you're even remotely familiar with the films, you'd recognize the music even if the name itself doesn't immediately ring a bell. It's Darth Vader's theme song, a musical cue that evil has arrived and everyone around must fall in line or risk punishment.

Mostly, the troops @freedc20009 follows just ignore the anonymous TikToker, but there are a couple of times in the videos that they stop and address him. The music generally drowns out their comments, but the most recent video (above) is an exception.

"Hey man, if you're going to keep following us, we can contact Metro PD and they can come and handle you, if that's what you want to do," some tough guy whose hat sports the name "Beck" threatens him. "Is that what you want to do? Okay."

It's unclear whether Beck and his roving gang ever contacted the police, but the video continues on uninterrupted for another minute and 15 seconds as @freedc20009 continues following the group.

Depending on the exact circumstances, it's unlikely the TikToker is breaking any laws by following some goons around playing music for a few minutes here and there, but that also suggests rights still matter in the U.S., which feels pretty debatable at the moment.

Online reactions to the 'Imperial March' National Guard TikToks

The account first started posting these videos on August 29, 2025. The second one has racked up over 3.9 million views in that time frame. Recently, they've begun to go viral on other platforms, including X and reddit. And although acolytes of Donald Trump may have different opinions about it, people who are against the invasion of the National Guard into a city to support the president's whims and made-up claims about crime are glad to see someone pushing back, even in a way that merely causes vague annoyance.

"I literally can't stop watching all of these posts," one TikTok comment reads. "The tears are streaming down my face, cannot stop laughing."

"They can quit if they don't like it," another suggested.

Comment
byu/OkGarbage3095 from discussion
inandor

Comment
byu/5pooky5cary5keleton5 from discussion
inPublicFreakout

Comment
byu/OkGarbage3095 from discussion
inandor

Comment
byu/OkGarbage3095 from discussion
inandor

On Thursday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said that the National Guard's deployment to the city has not been responsible for any lowered crime rates. Trump has ordered troops be sent into Memphis, Tennessee, next.

Microsoft CEO Concerned AI Will Destroy the Entire Company

Victor Tangermann
Sat, September 20, 2025 
FUTURISM

Morale among employees at Microsoft is circling the drain, as the company has been roiled by constant rounds of layoffs affecting thousands of workers.

Some say they've noticed a major culture shift this year, with many suffering from a constant fear of being sacked — or replaced by AI as the company embraces the tech.

Meanwhile, CEO Satya Nadella is facing immense pressure to stay relevant during the ongoing AI race, which could help explain the turbulence. While making major reductions in headcount, the company has committed to multibillion-dollar investments in AI, a major shift in priorities that could make it vulnerable.

As The Verge reports, the possibility of Microsoft being made obsolete as it races to keep up is something that keeps Nadella up at night.

During an employee-only town hall last week, the CEO said that he was "haunted" by the story of Digital Equipment Corporation, a computer company in the early 1970s that was swiftly made obsolete by the likes of IBM after it made significant strategic errors.

Nadella explained that "some of the people who contributed to Windows NT came from a DEC lab that was laid off," as quoted by The Verge, referring to a proprietary and era-defining operating system Microsoft released in 1993.

His comments invoke the frantic contemporary scramble to hire new AI talent, with companies willing to spend astronomical amounts of money to poach workers from their competitors.

The pressure on Microsoft to reinvent itself in the AI era is only growing. Last month, billionaire Elon Musk announced that his latest AI project was called "Macrohard," a tongue-in-cheek jab squarely aimed at the tech giant.

"In principle, given that software companies like Microsoft do not themselves manufacture any physical hardware, it should be possible to simulate them entirely with AI," Musk mused late last month.

While it remains to be seen how successful Musk's attempts to simulate products like Microsoft's Office suite using AI will turn out to be, Nadella said he's willing to cut his losses if a product were to ever be made redundant.

"All the categories that we may have even loved for 40 years may not matter," he told employees at the town hall. "Us as a company, us as leaders, knowing that we are really only going to be valuable going forward if we build what’s secular in terms of the expectation, instead of being in love with whatever we’ve built in the past."

For now, Microsoft remains all-in on AI as it races to keep up. Earlier this year, Microsoft reiterated its plans to allocate a whopping $80 billion of its cash to supporting AI data centers — significantly more than some of its competitors, including Google and Meta, were willing to put up.

Complicating matters is its relationship with OpenAI, which has repeatedly been tested. OpenAI is seeking Microsoft's approval to go for-profit, and simultaneously needs even more compute capacity for its models than Microsoft could offer up, straining the multibillion-dollar partnership.

Last week, the two companies signed a vaguely-worded "non-binding memorandum of understanding," as they are "actively working to finalize contractual terms in a definitive agreement."

In short, Nadella's Microsoft continues to find itself in an awkward position as it tries to cement its own position and remain relevant in a quickly evolving tech landscape.

You can feel his anxiety: as the tech industry's history has shown, the winners will score big — while the losers, like DEC, become nothing more than a footnote.

More on Microsoft: After 9,000 Layoffs, Microsoft Boss Has Brutal Advice for Sacked Workers

It’s not just Sam Altman warning about an AI bubble. Now Mark Zuckerberg says a ‘collapse’ is ‘definitely a possibility’

Mark Zuckerberg and Meta recently promised $600 billion in future AI spending. · Fortune · DAVID PAUL MORRIS—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Lily Mae Lazarus
Fri, September 19, 2025 
Fortune.com

Deutsche Bank called it “the summer AI turned ugly.” For weeks, with every new bit of evidence that corporations were failing at AI adoption, fears of an AI bubble have intensified, fueled by the realization of just how topheavy the S&P 500 has grown, along with warnings from top industry leaders. An August study from MIT found that 95% of AI pilot programs fail to deliver a return on investment, despite over $40 billion being poured into the space. Just prior to MIT’s report, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman rang AI bubble alarm bells, expressing concern over the overvaluation of some AI startups and the intensity of investor enthusiasm. These trends have even caught the attention of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who noted that the U.S. was witnessing “unusually large amounts of economic activity” in building out AI capabilities.


Mark Zuckerberg has some similar thoughts.

The Meta CEO acknowledged that the rapid development of and surging investments in AI stands to form a bubble, potentially outpacing practical productivity and returns and risking a market crash. But Zuckerberg insists that the risk of over-investment is preferable to the alternative: being late to what he sees as an era-defining technological transformation.

“There are compelling arguments for why AI could be an outlier,” Zuckerberg hedged in an appearance on the Access podcast. “And if the models keep on growing in capability year-over-year and demand keeps growing, then maybe there is no collapse.”

Then Zuckerberg joined the Altman camp, saying that all capital expenditure bubbles like the buildout of AI infrastructure, seen largely in the form of data centers, tend to end in similar ways. “But I do think there’s definitely a possibility, at least empirically, based on past large infrastructure buildouts and how they led to bubbles, that something like that would happen here,” Zuckerberg said.

Bubble echoes

Zuckerberg pointed to past bubbles, namely railroads and the dot-com bubble, as key examples of infrastructure buildouts leading to a stock-market collapse. In these instances, he claimed that bubbles occurred due to businesses taking on too much debt, macroeconomic factors, or product demand waning, leading to companies going under and leaving behind valuable assets.


The Meta CEO’s comments echoed Altman’s, who has similarly cautioned that the AI boom is showing many signs of a bubble.

“When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth,” Altman told The Verge, adding that AI is that kernel: transformative and real, but often surrounded by irrational exuberance. Altman has also warned that “the frenzy of cash chasing anything labeled ‘AI’” can lead to inflated valuations and risk for many.


The consequences of these bubbles are costly. During the dot-com bubble, investors poured money into tech startups with unrealistic expectations, driven by hype and a frenzy for new internet-based companies. When the results fell short, the stocks involved in the dot-com bubble lost more than $5 trillion in total market cap.


An AI bubble stands to have similarly significant economic impacts. In 2025 alone, the largest U.S. tech companies, including Meta, have spent more than $155 billion on AI development. And, according to Statista, the current AI market value is approximately $244.2 billion.

But, for Zuckerberg, losing out on AI’s potential is a far greater risk than losing money in an AI bubble. The company recently committed at least $600 billion to U.S. data centers and infrastructure through 2028 to support its AI ambitions. According to Meta’s chief financial officer, this money will go towards all of the tech giant’s US data center buildouts and domestic business operations, including new hires. Meta also launched its superintelligence lab, recruiting talent aggressively with multi-million-dollar job offers, to develop AI that outperforms human intelligence.


“If we end up misspending a couple hundred billion dollars, that’s going to be very unfortunate obviously. But I would say the risk is higher on the other side,” Zuckerberg said. “If you build too slowly, and superintelligence is possible in three years but you built it out were assuming it would be there in five years, then you’re out of position on what I think is going to be the most important technology that enables the most new products and innovation and value creation in history.”

While he sees the consequences of not being aggressive enough in AI investing outweighing overinvesting, Zuckerberg acknowledged that Meta’s survival isn’t dependent upon AI’s success.

For companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, he said “there’s obviously this open question of to what extent are they going to keep on raising money, and that’s dependent both to some degree on their performance and how AI does, but also all of these macroeconomic factors that are out of their control.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

 so-called “Department of War.”

Hegseth Orders Reporters to Publish Only His Talking Points

HEGSETH WAS MEDIA LIASON WHEN HE WAS IN THE MILITARY

Jack Revell
Fri, September 19, 2025 
DAILY BEAST


Yves Herman / Reuters

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has introduced new guidelines that heavily restrict press freedom at the so-called “Department of War.”

Reporters will now need express approval from the department in order to publish any information gathered at the Pentagon, and are forbidden from accessing most of the building without an escort.

Journalists will be made to sign compliance forms pledging to protect “sensitive information” and will be stripped of their credentials if they do not adhere to the new rules.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is introducing an effective veto over what can be reported from the Pentagon. / Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

In a new memo, Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell said that these “physical control measures” announced in May are now in effect.

“All members of the press issued a Pentagon Facility Alternate Credential (PFAC) will be required to read and sign a new in–brief form outlining information security requirements, the new physical control measures, and Department of War expectations of their compliance with safety and security requirements,” the memo, obtained by The Daily Wire, reads.

When the plans were originally announced, the Pentagon Press Association issued a statement decrying the move as “a direct attack on the freedom of the press and America’s right to know what its military is doing.”

Pete Hegseth shows off his tattoos, including the Crusader cross on his chest. / Pete Hegseth/Instagram

The Pentagon press corps have also characterized the changes as a “form of targeted retribution against publications that the Trump administration doesn’t like,” as criticisms of the White House’s suppression of free speech continue.

“The guidelines in the memo provided to credentialed resident media at the Pentagon reaffirms the standards that are already in line with every other military base in the country,” Parnell told the Daily Beast. “These are basic, common-sense guidelines to protect sensitive information as well as the protection of national security and the safety of all who work at the Pentagon.”

While most military bases do have strict security protocols for visitors, the Pentagon is not a typical military base. For decades, it has had a dedicated press corps who have been able to move freely about the site. This remained in place even in the wake of high-security risk incidents like the September 11 attacks.

Hegseth, himself a former Fox News anchor, has said on social media that he expects all reporters to comply or face the consequences.

“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon—the people do,“ Hegseth, 45, wrote on X. ”The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules—or go home.”

The defense secretary has been embroiled in a controversial battle over the control of information since his tenure began in January.

Hegseth is a former host for Fox News. / Roy Rochlin / Getty Images

He has been on the war path to stamp out leaks—firing aides and reportedly subjecting staffers to polygraph tests—which has caused friction within his department.


Hegseth himself was implicated in the accidental sharing of “war plans” in a Signal group chat prior to a classified operation to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen in March. He has also been accused of allowing his third wife, Jennifer Rauchet, to sit in on classified meetings.

Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. in the Pentagon promoting their exercise challenge—with a large photo of Hegseth and his wife adorning the wall. / screen grab

In July, it was reported that White House officials had privately warned Hegseth that his own position was in danger if he could not stem the scandals.

“While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect [classified national intelligence information] and sensitive information,” the new media guidelines memo from May reads.

President Donald Trump and Hegseth rebranded the Department of Defense in August. Defense Secretary Hegseth now identifies as “War Secretary” while his department has undergone a similar name change.

The administration does not actually have the power to rename a government department, so the new title is merely an additional one.

Pete Hegseth was captured shortly before midnight in December 2017, enjoying himself over drinks at a colleague’s wedding. He appeared on the air early the next morning. / Obtained by The Daily Beast

Shortly after Trump announced his pick for defense secretary, several of Hegseth’s former Fox News colleagues went public with their concerns over his drinking habits, noting that he would often smell of alcohol and required “babysitting” in his role as a Fox & Friends co-host.

“He should not be secretary of defense,” a former Fox employee said at the time. “His drinking should be disqualifying.”

Pentagon demands journalists sign pledge not to gather certain information

Maya Yang
Sat, September 20, 2025 
THE GUARDIAN


Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon in Washington on Friday.Photograph: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


The US military has issued new media restrictions demanding that journalists pledge not to gather any information – including unclassified documents – that has not been authorized for release or else risk revocation of their press passes.

In a memo issued Thursday, the Pentagon stated that “it remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust”. However, using an abbreviation for the recently rebranded Department of War headed by the Trump administration’s Pete Hegseth, the memo added: “DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”

It went on to say: “Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be granted access to [classified national security information].”

Journalists reporting from the Pentagon are now required to sign a pledge agreeing to restrict their movements within the building and not to access any unauthorized materials. If they refuse to sign the pledge, their Pentagon press passes will be revoked.

In a post on X, Hegseth said Friday: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules – or go home.”

The latest memo follows the announcement by Hegseth in May regarding new press restrictions at the Pentagon. These restrictions limit reporters’ movements within the building to specific areas including the press pens, food court and courtyard. This is a departure from the usual practice under previous presidential administrations where reporters typically had more freedom of movement within the Pentagon.

Hegseth has severely limited media access after facing backlash for sharing sensitive information about US strikes in Yemen in March in a Signal group chat where a journalist was accidentally included.

Since he assumed office, Hegseth has maintained a hostile attitude towards major media networks. He ordered the removal of various longstanding news organizations including the New York Times, CNN, Politico and NPR from their dedicated offices in the Pentagon.

The Pentagon’s latest memo has drawn criticism from journalists and free press advocates, with the National Press Club’s president Mike Balsamo saying: “This is a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the US military.

“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It is getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American.”

Similarly, Freedom of the Press Foundation said “this policy operates as a prior restraint on publication, which is considered the most serious” violations of the press freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution’s first amendment.

“The government cannot prohibit journalists from public information merely by claiming it’s a secret,” the foundation said.

Meanwhile, Thomas Evans, editor in chief of National Public Radio (NPR), said his outlet was “taking this very seriously”.

“We’ll be working with other news organizations to push back,” Evans remarked. “We’re big fans of the first amendment and transparency, and we want the American public to understand what’s being done in their name.”

The Pentagon’s restrictions on media access come as Trump suggested recently that TV networks should be punished for “negative coverage”. That statement followed widespread backlash over ABC’s indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s popular late-night show, on which the veteran comedian said that many in Trump’s Make America Great Again movement “are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk”, referring to the 10 September killing of the rightwing activist.

Speaking on Air Force One on Thursday, Trump said – without providing evidence – that “97% [of major US networks are] against me”.

“They give me only bad press,” he said, adding that he believed broadcasters should have their licenses “taken away” as a result.

Among those to endorse Trump’s argument was the US senator Cynthia Lummis. The Wyoming Republican recently told the US news website Semafor that such licenses are “a privilege” rather than a “right” – and she said to the outlet that she no longer believes the first amendment is “the ultimate right”.

“I feel like something’s changed culturally,” Lummis said, in part. “And I think there needs to be cognizance that things have changed.”

Pentagon Accused of ‘Intimidation’ With New Restrictions For Journalists

Rebecca Schneid
Sat, September 20, 2025
TIME



U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (L), accompanied by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine (R), takes a question from a reporter during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. Credit - Andrew Harnik—2025 Getty Images

The Pentagon released new restrictions for journalists covering the Department of Defense this week, requiring them to sign a pledge not to gather or report on information that has not been authorized for release—even if it is unclassified. Those who do not obey the new rules, the Pentagon said, risk having their press credentials revoked.

“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on X Friday evening.

Kimmel and Colbert Cancellations Reveal Trump’s Media Suppression Strategy, Experts Warn

The Department of Defense said in a 17-page memo circulated on Friday that, in addition to the new reporting rules, the around 90 reporters credentialed to cover the Pentagon will now be restricted from several floors of the building unless they have a government escort, which heavily restricts the movement of journalists who, for the most part, were previously able to walk the halls.

Longtime Pentagon press corps members and press freedom groups roundly condemned the move, characterizing it as an alarming shift away from decades of precedent set by previous administrations.

“It's 100% an intimidation tactic. It's 100% an attempt to kill transparency and funnel all public information through the government, which goes against every constitutional principle of free speech you can imagine,” Kevin Baron, the former vice president of the Pentagon Press Association who covered the Pentagon as a reporter for 15 years, told TIME.

Baron noted that Pentagon reporters have for decades had the ability to walk freely not just in the DoD headquarters, but also in the press offices for every service branch, from the Navy to the Army. The restrictions, Baron said, prevent reporters from doing their job entirely. In his fifteen years as a beat reporter at the Pentagon, Baron said it was incredibly rare for him to have to sign “anything,” and the only times he did were times in which his reporting affected the safety of those traveling into conflict zones.

Seth Stern of the Free Press Foundation said that the mandate goes against decades of legal precedent of journalists lawfully obtaining and publishing government secrets. He called the move “fundamentally un-American.”

“This policy operates as a prior restraint on publication which is considered the most serious of First Amendment violations,” Stern said. “[T]he government cannot prohibit journalists from public information merely by claiming it’s a secret or even a national security threat.”

Stern said that he hoped that journalists would not capitulate to the Pentagon’s new rules, and would forgo their access if they needed to.

“Agreeing not to look where the government doesn’t want you to look and, by extension, not to print what it doesn’t want you to print, is propaganda, not journalism,” Stern said.

The National Press Club president, Mike Balsamo, called the move a “direct assault on independent journalism.”

“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting,” Balsamo said in a statement. “It is getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American.”

The move comes at a time when the treatment of the press by the U.S. military and the government at large is under high scrutiny.

The new rules follow previous restrictions on movement Hegseth placed on journalists in May after he had been hit by several high-profile media leaks in his first few months in office, one of the most serious of which came after the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic detailed his experience of being accidentally placed in a Signal group chat with national-security leaders that included plans about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. Hegseth has repeatedly denied this reporting.

The Pentagon in particular has had a tense, if not antagonistic, relationship with the press. In February, Hegseth instituted a new “annual media rotation program,” which essentially kicked out several news organizations from their Pentagon offices, including NBC News, the New York Times and National Public Radio (NPR), to rotate in new, conservative outlets, including One American Network, Newsmax and Breitbart, as well as the more progressive HuffPost.

After the Trump Administration’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Hegseth made headlines for continuously criticizing the Pentagon’s media corps, calling on them to focus on the details of the mission carried out by the U.S. military, rather than on leaked intelligence that argued that the damage made by the U.S. strikes was not as severe as desired.

The Pentagon’s attacks on the press come in conjunction with the Trump Administration's efforts to limit coverage and access to journalists. President Donald Trump also sued multiple news organizations during his first nine months in office, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, over their coverage.

Just this week, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, threatened television stations with “fines or license revocation” if they continued distributing Jimmy Kimmel Live!, the comedian's late-night show, over comments he made about the recently assassinated right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Soon after, ABC network decided to indefinitely suspend the show, a move that has prompted criticism from free speech advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it is just one move in Trump’s “unconstitutional plan to silence its critics and control what the American people watch and read.”

Taliban officials reject Trump Bagram Airfield return suggestion   DEMAND

Filip Timotija
Fri, September 19, 2025
THE HILL 


Taliban officials reject Trump Bagram Airfield return suggestion

Taliban officials rejected President Trump’s suggestion that Bagram Airfield near Kabul could return to U.S. control after it was abandoned during the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan under the Biden administration.

The Taliban indicated it is willing to talk with the Trump administration about the air base — which was built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s — but said no U.S. service members would be permitted.

Zakir Jalaly, an official at the Taliban Foreign Ministry, said Thursday that the U.S. and Afghanistan can have economic and political relations based on “mutual respect and shared interests,” but the U.S. will not be allowed to have a military presence in the country.

Muhajir Farahi, the deputy minister of information and culture in Afghanistan, shared a part of a poem on social platform X, which in part said that those who “once smashed their heads against the rocks with us, their minds have still not found peace.”

Trump, during a press conference early Thursday in the United Kingdom alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said the U.S. “gave” the base to the Taliban “for nothing.”

“We’re trying to get it back, by the way,” the president said. “That could be a little breaking news: We’re trying to get it back, because they need things from us.”

“We want that base back, but one of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons,” he added.

The president did not disclose other details on plans to recover the air base.

The base fell to the Taliban after the chaotic 2021 withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan during the Biden administration. It was the biggest U.S. military base in the country.

The president said in February that the U.S. should have kept the base under its purview and alleged that China’s People’s Liberation Army took control of it, something Beijing and the Taliban have denied.

U.S. officials have recently engaged with officials in Kabul over Americans who are held in Afghanistan. Trump’s special hostage envoy Adam Boehler and Zalmay Khalilzad, ex-U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, had a meeting with the Taliban’s foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, Reuters reported.
Trump has often criticized the August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, where 13 U.S. service members were killed by a suicide bombing at Kabul’s airport.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trump threatens ‘bad things’ for Afghanistan in dispute over air base

Andrea Hamblin
Sat, September 20, 2025

THE TELEGRAPH


The Taliban usually celebrates the anniversary of its takeover at Bagram but did not hold a parade this year - AHMAD SAHEL ARMAN


Donald Trump warned Afghanistan on Saturday that “bad things” would happen if if the Taliban did not “give back” the country’s largest military airfield.

The US president’s vague threat marks an escalation in a row over Bagram air base, after the Taliban condemned him for suddenly announcing during his visit to London that Washington was attempting to retake control of the site.

“If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Saturday evening.

On Thursday, Mr Trump said at a press conference alongside Sir Keir Starmer that he wanted the airbase back because of its strategic proximity to China.

The president has repeatedly said that Bagram is under Chinese control, a claim the Taliban and Beijing rejects.

“We’re trying to get it back – by the way, that could be a little breaking news,” Mr Trump said. “We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us.”

He added: “One of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.”

The Taliban called those remarks “baseless and strange”.

The president’s comments were “far from the facts and filled with hatred”, Mufti Abdul Mateen Qaneh, a Taliban spokesman, told The Telegraph.

“We will never hand over Bagram to anyone,” Mr Qaneh said. “Such remarks are baseless and strange.”

The air base, which is about 40 miles (65km) north of Kabul, served for 20 years as the linchpin of US operations after the campaign to topple the Taliban began in 2001, following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

It was abandoned by American forces in July 2021, shortly before the Taliban seized control of the country.

Mr Trump has criticised Joe Biden, the former president, over the tumultuous withdrawal from the region, complaining that $7 billion-worth of American weapons and other assets were left in the hands of the Taliban, which is categorised as a specially designated global terrorist group by the US.

Trump warns Afghanistan over return of strategic Bagram Air Base to US control

Brie Stimson
Sat, September 20, 2025

FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened Afghanistan, which is governed by the Taliban, if Bagram Air Base isn’t returned to the United States.

"If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!" he wrote on Truth Social.

The president didn’t elaborate on what consequences the country might face.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

On Thursday, the president said the administration is "trying" to get the former U.S. Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan "back" from the Taliban.

In remarks to the press while standing alongside U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the president criticized the handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan under President Joe Biden and said he had "a little breaking news."

"We're trying to get it back," Trump said. "We're trying to get it back because they need things from us."

Trump did not expand on whom he was referring to or, if referring to the Taliban, the terrorist organization that took over the country in 2021, what they "need" from the U.S.


"We want that base back, but one of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it's an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons," Trump added.

On Saturday evening, Trump told reporters the administration wants Bagram back "right away," and "if they don't do it, you're going to find out what I'm going to do."

Taliban helicopters land at the Bagram Air Base, in Bagram, Parwan province in Afghanistan in 2024.

The Taliban took over the country after the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021.

The U.S. claimed Bagram Air Base, which was built by the Soviets in the 1950s, in 2001 when the military went into Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks.

In 2021, when the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, it secretly left the base in the middle of the night on July 1, leaving it to the Afghan government.

The Taliban captured the base six weeks later in August of 2021, on the same day Kabul fell.

Earlier this year, White House hostage envoy Adam Boehler met with Taliban officials in Kabul while working to get hostage George Glezmann released, the first direct meeting since the pullout in 2021.

U.S. soldiers board a Air Force plane at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, Aug. 30, 2021.

Boehler, along with another U.S. envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, met with the Taliban's foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, and reportedly discussed ways to "develop bilateral relations between the two countries, issues related to citizens, and investment opportunities in Afghanistan," according to a Taliban statement.

The removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan began during the first Trump administration in March 2020, and open-source intelligence showed that the Taliban had been making gains across Afghanistan in the year leading up to the August 2021 withdrawal.

Under the deal forged by the first Trump administration, the U.S. agreed to withdraw all U.S. forces by May 1, 2021, but Biden extended the withdrawal date to August 2021.

Fox News’ Caitlin McFall and Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.

Trump says 'bad things' will happen if Afghanistan does not return Bagram air base

Katharine Jackson and Phil Stewart
Sat, September 20, 2025 


FILE PHOTO: U.S. vacates Bagram air base in Afghanistan - officials


By Katharine Jackson and Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened "bad things" would happen to Afghanistan if it does not give back control of the Bagram air base to the United States, and declined to rule out sending in troops to retake it.

"If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN," Trump said in a Truth Social post.

Trump said on Thursday that the United States had sought to regain control of the base used by American forces following the attacks of September 11, 2001. He told reporters on Friday that he was speaking with Afghanistan about it.

The withdrawal of American forces in 2021 led to a takeover of U.S. bases, and the toppling of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul, by the Islamist Taliban movement.

Afghan officials have expressed opposition to a revived U.S. presence.

Current and former U.S. officials privately caution that re-occupying Bagram air base in Afghanistan might end up looking like a re-invasion of the country, requiring more than 10,000 troops as well as deployment of advanced air defenses.

Trump, who has previously said he wants the United States to acquire territories and sites ranging from the Panama Canal to Greenland, has appeared focused on Bagram for years.

Asked on Saturday whether he would send in U.S. troops to retake the base, Trump declined to give a direct answer, saying: "We won't talk about that."

"We're talking now to Afghanistan and we want it back and we want it back soon, right away. And if they don't do it - if they don't do it, you're going to find out what I'm gonna do," he told reporters at the White House.

The sprawling airfield was the main base for American forces in Afghanistan during the two decades of war that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington by al Qaeda.

The base once counted fast-food restaurants like Burger King and Pizza Hut catering to U.S. troops as well as shops selling everything from electronics to Afghan rugs. It also hosted a massive prison complex.

Experts say the sprawling air base would be difficult to secure initially and would require massive manpower to operate and protect.

Even if the Taliban accepted the U.S. re-occupation of Bagram following negotiations, it would need to be defended from a host of threats including Islamic State and al Qaeda militants inside Afghanistan.

It could also be vulnerable to an advanced missile threat from Iran, which attacked a major U.S. air base in Qatar in June after the United States struck Iranian nuclear sites.

(Reporting by Katharine Jackson; Editing by Leslie Adler and Andrea Ricci)


Maddow Blog | Trump, eyeing return to Afghanistan, says U.S. is ‘trying to get’ back Bagram Airbase

Steve Benen
Fri, September 19, 2025

MSNBC

Around this time four years ago, as Donald Trump watched in frustration as Joe Biden ended the war in Afghanistan — a goal the Republican had wanted to complete, but didn’t — the then-former president suggested it might be a good idea to send U.S. troops back into the country.

In a written statement, Trump said that if the Taliban didn’t return equipment left behind in Afghanistan, the United States should consider going back in “with unequivocal Military force.”

Oddly enough, he didn’t let this go. Around the same time, Trump headlined a rally and told attendees, in reference to Afghanistan, “You know what, we have to go in and we should go in when it’s right and we now may have to be forced to go in. ... We may be forced to go in, and we may not be forced, but we may be forced to go in.” He kept this going well into 2022.

Years later, Trump is back in the White House, and he’s still talking about going back into Afghanistan. NBC News reported:

Trump said that the U.S. was ‘trying’ to get back Bagram Airbase, a former U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He did not provide details or what it would mean for U.S. troops, who left Afghanistan in 2021 during a widely criticized withdrawal.

Speaking to reporters at an event in England, Trump said of Bagram, “We’re trying to get it back, by the way. OK, that could be a little breaking news. We’re trying to get it back, because they need things from us. We want that base back.”

He didn’t appear to be kidding.

The Taliban, for what it’s worth, made clear soon after that it’s not willing to return the base to American control, and it’s difficult to imagine the White House changing Taliban leaders’ minds.

Time will tell just how much time, energy, effort and resources the president is prepared to invest in this apparent priority, and whether he’ll invite a public backlash by “trying” to get back into Afghanistan.

But in the meantime, spare a thought for those voters who backed the Republican ticket last year because they saw Trump as the candidate of foreign policy restraint and isolationism.

Those assumptions were not entirely ridiculous. In June 2020, in remarks at the West Point graduation ceremony, the president declared, “We are restoring the fundamental principles that the job of the American soldier is not to rebuild foreign nations, but defend — and defend strongly — our nation from foreign enemies. We are ending the era of endless wars. In its place is a renewed, clear-eyed focus on defending America’s vital interests. It is not the duty of U.S. troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands.”

Five years later, however, Trump has launched deadly military strikes on civilian boats in international waters. And launched preemptive military strikes on targets in Iran. And initiated a bombing campaign in Yemen. And announced his desire to annex Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal and the Gaza Strip. And directed the Pentagon to target drug cartels in Mexico.

And is now once again focusing on Afghanistan.

If you voted for Trump because you expected restraint on foreign policy and the use of military force abroad, I have some awful news for you.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The world feared Ukraine would fall to Russia in days. Now it's teaching NATO forces how to fight a new kind of war.

Matthew Loh
Fri, September 19, 2025

VIDEO   Business Insider

Warsaw has signed a new agreement that will see Ukraine training Polish troops to defend their skies.


For much of the war, NATO has been training Ukraine on alliance warfighting tactics.


The agreement is a new moment of recognition of Ukraine's experience and expertise in fighting Russia.

When Russian tank columns came thundering over Ukraine's borders in February 2022, much of the world braced for the country's immediate collapse.

Kyiv had been taking steps to bring its combat forces up to NATO standards, but the invasion left that work unfinished. International media ran bleak photos of civilians and teenagers training with cardboard Kalashnikov rifles.


Western officials, aware of Moscow's plan to take the country in three days, feared Kyiv's government would not last the week. US politicians were already talking of arming an insurgency.

The collapse never came.

Three years later, Ukraine has not only survived — it is now training NATO soldiers. On Thursday, Poland signed a new mutual exchange agreement that will see its troops learn from Kyiv's forces how to fight a new kind of war: a drone war.

Though there have been efforts within NATO to draw lessons from the Ukraine war and even learn from Ukrainian troops, the memorandum, signed by the Polish and Ukrainian defense ministers, marks a shift.

There's a clear recognition of the experience Ukraine has in some newer ways of war. "Ukraine is currently the most experienced country in the world in the sphere of Western influence, on our side of the force, in terms of production capabilities, but also in the use of this equipment," said Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz.

NATO leaders have long acknowledged that there is much Western forces can learn from Ukraine's tactics, force structure, and sustainable way of war. The alliance has a joint facility in Poland that specializes in gleaning lessons from how Ukraine is fighting.

And with the new memorandum, Ukraine will be directly training Polish soldiers in elements of drone warfare, which has been a predominant aspect of Russia's war against its neighbor.

"We are talking about training engineers and training soldiers who will withstand and defend the air domain," Ukrainian defense minister Denys Shmyhal said.

The signing, which also covers closer cooperation on drone-making and robotics, comes about a week after Poland said it dealt with more than a dozen Russian drones illegally breaching its borders

When Warsaw sounded the alarm, NATO scrambled F-35s, F-16s, and other aircraft to confront the uncrewed platforms that had breached its airspace. Responding aircraft shot down multiple drones.

When the shooting subsided, the news rippled through Ukraine. Local bloggers reported, incredulously, that NATO had used million-dollar AIM-120 missiles to fight Gerberas: Russian decoy drones that are intended as cannon fodder.

It is unclear if that was the case, but regardless, Ukraine has been developing more cost-effective solutions.

Wartime experience has also taught Ukrainians that a shotgun is often the most reliable last line of defense against FPV drones, a tactic that is now being mimicked around the world.TETIANA DZHAFAROVA/AFP via Getty ImagesMore

Ukraine is forced to respond daily to Gerbera drones designed to mimic the Iranian-designed Shahed-136 and Russian variants. These aircraft often fly in tandem with ballistic missiles and actual versions of the loitering munition, a kind of one-way attack drone used in nightly bombardments.

Moscow launches hundreds of attack drones at a time, aiming to overwhelm and exhaust conventional defenses to strike railways, power grids, cities, and other infrastructure.

To fight Shaheds and Gerberas sustainably, and leave its expensive surface-to-air missiles for higher-end threats like Russian missiles, Kyiv deploys a ragtag raft of cheaper measures, including electronic warfare and new drones that fly so quickly they can act as interceptors. The new interceptor drones are emerging as a key capability with tremendous potential in the battle against Russian attacks.

One of Kyiv's enduring tactics is to deploy truck crews with machine guns and rifles who can fire up into the sky and hopefully destroy incoming Shaheds, though sometimes, they're out of reach. Another is to send troops in helicopters and propeller planes to chase drones and shoot them with small arms.

"Only with a multi-system structure can we combat a massive drone attack," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on September 11. That week, the Ukrainian leader pushed hard on the cost-heavy defense of Poland's skies, chiding NATO's style. Ukraine, he said, could show them a better way to fight Russia

"Ukraine is ready to share its experience and expand production," Zelenskyy said. It looks like the alliance is finally ready to take it up on that offer.