Afghanistan presents a challenging scenario for the Trump administration, which may struggle to reconcile its domestic objectives with its responsibilities as a global leader. Although there may be reluctance to allocate resources to Afghanistan, the administration might feel obligated to demonstrate its dedication to fundamental American principles. As a result, it may pursue actions aimed at compelling the Taliban to create a more inclusive political environment, protect women's rights, and ensure that Afghan territory is not utilized by terrorists to launch assaults on the United States.
Donald Trump was sworn in as 47th President of the United States of America (US) on 20 January 2025. Trump is the second president in American history to serve a non-consecutive second term after Grover Cleveland who was the 22nd and 24th President of the US. His electoral win is being considered significant because of the policy pronouncements he made during the campaigns and his uncharacteristic approach to foreign policy. Given what is being dubbed as his “transactional” approach, world leaders remain wary about every move taken by President Trump after assuming power. Decisions like withdrawing from the Paris Climate treaty, pulling out of WHO, bid to rename the Gulf of Mexico, proposal to acquire Greenland from Denmark etc. and other such decisions of President Trump, as he proceeds with his second term in office, will certainly have ripple effects across the world. In this context, the present commentary attempts to look at the implications of Trump’s second term for Afghanistan.
After withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, US stakes in the country are minimal. However, the country’s geopolitical significance and the possibilities of the country becoming a potential ground for transnational terrorism have not diminished. Therefore, it remains an interesting question: How would President Trump deal with the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, particularly in light of his policy of prioritizing pragmatism over traditional ideological considerations? It is pertinent also as Afghanistan, after the US withdrawal, under Taliban rule presents a more complex scenario.
During his first tenure in the White House (2017-2021), Trump was openly critical of the prolonged American presence in Afghanistan, branding the war a costly and ineffective endeavour. He rejected the notion of nation-building and sought a swift exit, positioning himself as a president who would end America’s longest and most costly war. Trump favoured an approach that integrated diplomatic, economic, and military tools to create a conducive environment for negotiations and evolving a framework for a smooth US exit from Afghanistan.
President Trump was less interested in promoting democracy or human rights in Afghanistan and more in securing US strategic interests in the country. One of the defining aspects of Trump’s Afghanistan policy was his direct negotiations with the Taliban. After expressing frustration with traditional strategies, Trump bypassed conventional diplomatic norms, choosing to engage directly with the Taliban leadership. This culminated in the Doha Agreement of 2020, which outlined a roadmap for US withdrawal in exchange for the Taliban’s commitments to counter-terrorism and intra-Afghan dialogue. While the deal represented a pragmatic attempt to extricate the US from what scholars like Amin Saikal calls the “Afghan Trap”, it, at the same, helped the Taliban to legitimize themselves as a key stakeholder. The deal not only granted the insurgent group significant political leverage but it also, more importantly, undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government in Kabul.Â
Trump’s priority to swiftly withdraw from Afghanistan, without ensuring that the gains made in governance, political rights of all Afghans are protected, drew criticism for its short-term focus and potential long-term consequences. However, he had to live up to the promise made to his voters about ending the costliest war America has ever fought. He pursued his “America First” policy at the expense of the achievements made in the last two decades in Afghanistan. Â
Another significant shift in the US Foreign Policy in South Asia under Trump was his stance toward Pakistan, a country long viewed as a critical yet challenging partner in Afghanistan. Unlike his predecessors, Trump openly criticised Pakistan for providing safe havens to the Taliban, accusing it of undermining US efforts in the region and misusing the funds provided by the US to fight terror. His administration curtailed military aid to Pakistan, making future support conditional on tangible actions against terrorism. This approach not only strained US-Pakistan relations but also signaled a shift in American calculations of its engagement in the broader South Asian region. Trump went further by advocating for India’s greater and more active involvement in Afghanistan, breaking with the traditional US reluctance, primarily, to alienate Pakistan. India welcomed this shift, as it aligned with its regional aspirations and helped in efforts to make sure that Islamabad was not able to use the Afghan territory to undermine India’s interests.
While there has been a shift in the nature of US engagement with the world under Trump, much has changed, since Trump’s first rule, in Afghanistan too. The Taliban captured Kabul just a year after signing the Doha Agreement. They have consolidated their grip over the country in the past three years. Being in a better position than they were during Trump’s first term, the Taliban seem to think that Trump’s pragmatic approach to US foreign policy may suit them. Trump as a pragmatic leader, who prioritises deal-making, rather than imposing ideological or humanitarian conditions may create a window to engage with the new administration in return for something, like further ensuring that the Afghan territory will not be used by anti-US forces.
Soon after Trump won the US election in November 2024, spokesperson of the Taliban foreign ministry, Abdul Qahar Balkhi congratulated Mr. Trump by writing on X (formerly Twitter) and expressed optimism about the new Trump administration to take realistic steps toward concrete progress in relations between the twocountries. This perception has fostered optimism within the Taliban about potential financial support and future engagements in his second term, which may help in reviving the already crippled Afghan economy.
Trump’s transactional approach, however, also involves conditionalities. His willingness to link US assistance to progress made by the Taliban on counter-terrorism may work. However, if Trump himself or some members in his administration make any future assistance conditional to Taliban ensuring human rights, particularly women’s rights, that will pose challenges for the Taliban. Furthermore, the Trump administration may also have much more leverage on the Taliban in terms of imposing sanctions; the US may even hit terrorists inside Afghanistan who are deemed as threats to its security. The Taliban may not be able to do much about it. They will have to make themselves relevant to Trump’s pragmatic foreign policy; whether they will do it and how they will do it remains to be seen.
Taliban’s harsh policies toward women, including restrictions on education and public life, will remain a significant barrier to constructive engagement, limiting the prospects for meaningful progress with the US. At this time, US financial support and humanitarian assistance is highly important and crucial for Afghan people. Cuts in financial assistance could exacerbate the country’s economic crisis, undermining progress in education, healthcare, and food security. While the US has traditionally been a significant donor to Afghanistan, Trump’s focus on domestic priorities and cost-cutting will make it hard to convince him to donate money for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan.
It is also important to look at the way the State Department is going to approach Afghanistan. Trump has picked Marco Rubio for the position of the Secretary of State in his administration, who is a hardline critic of the Taliban. He has said that Taliban ruled Afghanistan is a direct threat to US national security. In the past, he had reintroduced a bill in the Congress in November 2023 to designate the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
Despite all this, Trump’s policy may not also be too predictable. Although he is a businessman and said to be transactional in his behaviour, his policy may change, particularly given the fact that the context has dramatically changed since his first term. Trump has already described the withdrawal from Afghanistan as “the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country,” signaling his dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Although Trump is expected to stick to his business minded approach, he may be forced by circumstances to change his approach towards Afghanistan too in the wider interests of the US.
Afghanistan is a test case where the Trump administration may find it hard to balance its domestic priorities with its role as a global leader. Despite the fact that he may not be willing to invest in Afghanistan, to showcase its commitment to quintessential American values, the Trump administration may feel compelled to take steps to coerce the Taliban to ensure an inclusive political system, guarantee women rights and non-use of the Afghan territory by terrorists to launch attacks on the US.
*Ms Puspa Kumari is an Intern in Observer Research Foundation. She follows developments in Afghanistan closely and comments on them. The views expressed here are her own.
