Follow us on social

Top Dem: Biden plans to stay in Afghanistan past May 1 deadline

Top Dem: Biden plans to stay in Afghanistan past May 1 deadline

Biden officials told House Armed Services Chair Rep. Adam Smith that the proposed delay is a matter of logistics.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific

The Biden administration is planning to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan past an agreed-upon May 1 deadline to withdraw, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Wednesday to a panel hosted by Foreign Policy.

“It’s a general feeling that May 1 is too soon, just logistically,” Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) claimed, citing conversations with administration officials. “You cannot pull out ten thousand plus troops in any sort of reasonable way in just six weeks.”

Under the terms of the Doha Agreement signed with the Taliban in February 2020, the United States is obligated to pull its forces out of Afghanistan by May 1 this year. Smith said that the Biden administration wants to “negotiate past May 1” in order to explore its options.

“Job one is to try to get back in to talk to the Taliban about at least giving us more time,” he added.

“It is a purely logistical argument,” Smith clarified in response to an audience question, noting that he thinks “the Biden administration is skeptical” that the Taliban or a future Afghan unity government “could be comfortable with our presence” in the long run.

There are roughly 3,500 U.S. troops and 7,000 allied forces in Afghanistan as part of the mission to shore up the U.S.-backed Afghan government against Islamist rebels. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government had been undercounting its troop presence by about 1,000 service members.

After helping the Afghan government fight the Taliban for nearly two decades, the United States opened a peace process with the rebel group in 2018. The Taliban agreed in 2020 to cease attacks on foreign forces in exchange for a full withdrawal — a bargain the rebels have held up — and U.S. forces have even begun to partner with the Taliban against the Islamic State.

There have been no U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan since the agreement was signed. Experts warn that the Taliban could go on an “all-out offensive” against foreign troops if the United States breaks its end of the deal.

Laurel Miller, director of the Asia program at the International Crisis Group, told Wednesday’s panel that “you can’t roll back the clock to the time before the Doha agreement…just because someone wants something better.”

The intra-Afghan peace process has not gone so smoothly, as the Taliban ramps up its attacks on pro-government forces. The Biden administration has now begun a diplomatic blitz to try to resolve the Afghan civil war.

“Afghanistan is likely to spiral into more violence,” Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi and senior fellow Adam Weinstein argued in a Tuesday op-ed. “President Biden must accept the logical conclusion of this reality: The only variable he can control is whether American soldiers will be the target of that violence or be safe at home with their families.”

Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, told the Wednesday panel that “the risks are simply too high to go to zero troops.”

“The Taliban would be able to retake power in twelve to eighteen months,” she contended. “You would see a convergence of terrorists from around the world in Afghanistan.”

Curtis acknowledged that staying in Afghanistan would expose U.S. forces to attack, but said that the United States “could answer the Taliban in kind.”

Smith, however, argued that “the risk is lower” from terrorism than it was in the 1990s—and that diplomacy was key to fighting the global terrorist threat.

“If you pull out of Afghanistan, it sends the message that you get that” about diplomacy, he said. “In the past twenty years, we have relied too much on the military and too much on thinking that if you kill enough people it will be okay.”

And he was blunt about the risks of breaking from the peace process: “If we are there in large numbers, we are vulnerable...we are going to lose lives.”


A coalition force member provides security for Afghan soldiers deploying within Afghanistan on March 4, 2013. The deployment process is part of the transition of security to the Afghan National Security Force before coalition forces depart in 2014. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Freire)|Tech. Sgt. Brent Spotts, 455th Expeditionary Operational Support Squadron dirt boy, poses for a photo during a pre-inspection, July 1, 2016, Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan. Spotts is forward deployed from the 455th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron in Bagram, Afghanistan. As the only civil engineer in Jalalabad, Spotts is responsible for the airfield electrical systems, structure, and pavements and equipment. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Justyn M. Freeman)
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
US Navy Arctic
Top photo credit: Cmdr. Raymond Miller, commanding officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96), looks out from the bridge wing as the ship operates with Royal Norwegian replenishment oiler HNoMS Maud (A-530) off the northern coast of Norway in the Norwegian Sea above the Arctic Circle, Aug. 27, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Cesar Licona)

The rising US-NATO-Russia security dilemma in the Arctic

North America

An ongoing Great Power tit-for-tat in which U.S./NATO and Russian warships and planes approach each other’s territories in the Arctic, suggests a sense of growing instability in the region.

This uptick in military activities risks the development of a security dilemma: one state or group of states increasing their security presence or capabilities creates insecurity in other states, prompting them to respond similarly.

keep readingShow less
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.