Chagos Islands Dispute Deepens After Trump Warning

Published: 19 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Tensions over the future of the Chagos Islands have flared again after Donald Trump publicly urged Sir Keir Starmer not to proceed with plans to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius. The intervention has reignited debate in Westminster and Washington about security, sovereignty, and Britain’s global role.

The Chagos Islands sit in the Indian Ocean and remain strategically vital. Under an agreement reached last year, the United Kingdom would cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius. In return, Britain would lease Diego Garcia, the largest island, for 99 years to maintain the joint UK-US military base.

For months, the arrangement appeared to enjoy cautious support in Washington. Earlier this month, Mr Trump described the deal as the “best” available option. The US State Department subsequently confirmed its backing for the agreement, signalling formal approval from the administration.

However, that position shifted sharply this week. Posting on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump warned that Sir Keir was “making a big mistake” by handing over control. He suggested the arrangement risked weakening Western strategic interests in a volatile region.

“Our relationship with the United Kingdom is a strong and powerful one,” he wrote. Yet he argued the Prime Minister was losing control of a critical asset based on what he called questionable claims. The comments have caused fresh uncertainty about Washington’s stance.

Mr Trump also raised the prospect of heightened tensions with Iran. He suggested that, should diplomacy fail, the United States might need to rely on Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Such remarks underscored the military significance of the Chagos Islands.

He described the proposed lease as “tenuous at best” and warned against relinquishing sovereignty. In his view, permanent British control would better protect allied security interests. The language marked a return to the sharper criticism he voiced last month.

The timing has complicated matters for Sir Keir. Only a day before the social media post, the US Department of State had reiterated its support. Officials in Washington confirmed they backed Britain’s decision to proceed with Mauritius.

Asked whether Mr Trump’s comments represented official policy, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt left little room for doubt. She told reporters that the post should be taken as the policy of the administration. That clarification has intensified diplomatic scrutiny.

Opposition figures in Britain quickly seized on the development. Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, accused the government of pursuing an “ill-judged” surrender. She argued that repeated public rebukes from Washington represented a humiliation for Downing Street.

Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, focused on the inconsistency in American messaging. He said the apparent “flip-flopping” illustrated why relying on Mr Trump’s backing was risky. In his view, Britain should strengthen ties with European partners instead.

The government, however, has remained firm in its position. A Foreign Office spokesperson said the agreement was essential to secure the long-term future of the base. Officials insist the deal is the only viable route to safeguard allied security.

At the centre of the debate lies Diego Garcia. The island has hosted a joint UK-US military facility for decades. Its location allows rapid deployment across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia.

Supporters of the deal argue that leasing arrangements preserve operational continuity. They note that the base would remain under joint management despite the sovereignty transfer. In their assessment, practical control matters more than symbolic ownership.

Critics remain unconvinced. They argue that surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands could weaken Britain’s bargaining power in the future. Some also fear it sets a precedent for further territorial concessions.

Beyond geopolitics, the issue carries deep historical scars. Up to 2,000 Chagossians were forcibly removed from the archipelago during the 1960s and 1970s. Many were resettled in Mauritius and the United Kingdom.

For decades, displaced families have campaigned for the right to return. Their struggle has drawn international attention and legal challenges. The sovereignty dispute has therefore always been about more than military strategy.

This week, that human dimension resurfaced dramatically. Four Chagossians landed on Île du Coin, part of the Peros Banhos atoll, in an attempt to complicate the transfer process. Reports suggest more intended to join them in establishing a permanent settlement.

British Indian Ocean Territory officials issued removal orders shortly afterwards. The documents stated the individuals were unlawfully present and would be removed. They warned that returning could result in imprisonment and a substantial fine.

The move has prompted criticism from campaigners. Many argue that those removed were asserting ancestral rights rather than breaking immigration rules. Mauritius, for its part, denies allegations that it has neglected Chagossian interests.

International bodies have also entered the debate. A United Nations committee has urged both governments not to ratify the 2025 agreement. It warned that proceeding could perpetuate historical rights violations.

The diplomatic balancing act is delicate. Britain seeks to comply with international legal opinions favouring Mauritian sovereignty. At the same time, it must reassure Washington that military capabilities will remain intact.

Sir Keir faces pressure on multiple fronts. Domestically, he must defend the decision as pragmatic and lawful. Internationally, he must navigate a US administration that appears divided in tone.

For Mr Trump, the Chagos Islands represent a symbol of strategic resilience. His comments reflect broader scepticism about multilateral compromises. They also resonate with his longstanding emphasis on strength and sovereignty.

Yet analysts note that formal policy remains aligned with the agreement. The State Department’s endorsement has not been withdrawn. That distinction leaves room for diplomatic clarification in coming days.

The controversy also highlights the evolving nature of UK-US relations. While ties remain close, public disagreements have become more visible. Social media interventions can now reshape diplomatic narratives within hours.

As Parliament prepares to scrutinise the agreement further, ministers will emphasise continuity of defence operations. They will argue that leasing Diego Garcia ensures stability for decades. Opponents will counter that sovereignty cannot easily be reclaimed once surrendered.

Ultimately, the future of the Chagos Islands will hinge on ratification and implementation. The agreement aims to close a long-running dispute while preserving strategic assets. Whether it achieves that balance remains contested.

For Chagossian families, however, the debate carries personal weight. Their hopes of return and recognition remain central to any lasting resolution. Without addressing those concerns, sovereignty alone may not settle the issue.

As events unfold, Britain finds itself navigating complex historical, legal, and security currents. The Chagos Islands debate encapsulates the challenges of modern diplomacy. It is a test of alliances, accountability, and political judgement.

Check our latest news