Chagos Islands spark Trump’s Greenland takeover plan

Published: 20 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Donald Trump has criticised the UK’s “stupidity” in handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, linking this decision directly to his interest in taking over Greenland. Speaking ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump emphasised that Britain’s recent move regarding Diego Garcia, a crucial US military base, demonstrates weakness in international affairs. He stated that the handover signals vulnerability to China and Russia, countries he says only respect strength, and reiterated that the United States under his leadership is uniquely positioned to protect strategic territories.

Trump’s comments came via multiple posts on his Truth Social platform, where he argued that Britain’s decision to cede sovereignty over the islands was unnecessary and strategically reckless. He described the act as “great stupidity” and added that it reinforces the need for the United States to acquire Greenland. According to Trump, the combination of UK missteps and rising global threats provides ample justification for his Arctic ambitions, framing Greenland as an essential asset for American security interests.

The reaction in the UK was immediate and highly charged. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel echoed Trump’s concerns, warning that Labour’s £35bn Chagos deal undermines national security. She insisted that Prime Minister Keir Starmer should reconsider the agreement, citing potential weaknesses it introduces to the nation’s strategic position. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also condemned the surrender, describing it as an act of self-sabotage that compromises UK security and NATO alliances.

Badenoch emphasised that during her discussions with Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, she received confirmation that the handover was widely seen as a mistake in Washington. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage similarly welcomed Trump’s public intervention, suggesting it prevents a broader strategic error from taking effect. These responses illustrate growing domestic opposition to the Chagos deal, particularly among political figures prioritising defence and sovereignty concerns.

Despite these criticisms, government officials stressed the legality and necessity of the agreement. Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, reaffirmed that the UK’s treaty with Mauritius is fully legislated and ensures the continuation of the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia for 99 years. He indicated that Trump’s remarks would not influence the UK’s commitment, highlighting the importance of maintaining orderly diplomatic channels despite public disputes.

Jones further underscored that Prime Minister Starmer remains calm in the face of controversy, advocating for measured diplomacy rather than reactionary responses. He noted that while Trump’s statements are loud and unprecedented, British diplomacy has a proven track record of achieving results quietly, including safeguarding long-term military and intelligence priorities. These comments reflect the UK’s ongoing balancing act between domestic political pressures and international strategic commitments.

The Chagos Islands deal, valued at £3.4bn, has faced scrutiny in Parliament and beyond. Critics argue that the arrangement, while legally supported by UN advisory opinions, risks granting China undue influence in the Indian Ocean due to Mauritius’s growing economic ties with Beijing. Trump’s narrative positions Greenland as a counterbalance to such developments, framing it as an Arctic asset critical to maintaining US supremacy in global security. Analysts suggest that this framing aligns with broader American concerns about expanding Chinese and Russian geopolitical influence.

International reactions to Trump’s statements have varied. While some US policymakers have long supported strategic acquisitions, the public nature of Trump’s commentary has drawn criticism for its diplomatic bluntness. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, reportedly sought to mediate dialogue at Davos, aiming to clarify positions on Greenland without escalating tensions. The situation underscores the interconnected nature of sovereignty disputes and global security considerations, where small territorial shifts can trigger broader geopolitical debates.

For the UK, the Chagos Islands deal represents both a legal resolution and a potential flashpoint. While the treaty secures long-term use of Diego Garcia, domestic political factions continue to question the wisdom of ceding sovereignty. Conservative and Reform party critiques emphasise national security implications, arguing that the government’s actions could embolden adversaries while weakening NATO cohesion. These arguments resonate with Trump’s public criticism, creating a rare alignment between US and UK political voices focused on strategic caution.

Observers highlight that the Greenland debate extends beyond symbolic gestures, touching on broader Arctic interests such as resource management, military positioning, and climate-related strategic access. Trump’s rhetoric positions the United States as a decisive actor in shaping these dynamics, using perceived UK mistakes as justification for intervention. Meanwhile, UK officials maintain that measured, legally grounded diplomacy, rather than public confrontation, remains the best path for securing both military assets and international credibility.

The continuing exchange of views between Washington and London reflects underlying tensions in transatlantic relations, particularly over military strategy and territorial sovereignty. While the Chagos Islands handover proceeds under existing agreements, Trump’s insistence on Greenland acquisition illustrates a proactive, sometimes controversial, US approach to global security challenges. Analysts caution that public interventions such as these may complicate diplomatic negotiations, even as strategic objectives remain shared across allied nations.

In conclusion, Trump’s criticism of the UK’s handling of the Chagos Islands has intensified debate over global strategic priorities, Greenland acquisition, and the United States’ role in Arctic security. The situation underscores the delicate balance between legal agreements, political optics, and international security, demonstrating that territorial decisions can have far-reaching implications. As the UK defends its treaty commitments, observers continue to monitor how these disputes will shape future NATO and US-UK strategic cooperation. The issue of sovereignty, military positioning, and allied trust remains at the forefront of this ongoing dialogue.

Check our latest news