Key Points
- Trump reverses support for UK Chagos deal.
- Threatens sanctions over Mauritius handover.
- Cites Diego Garcia military base concerns.
- UK defends pact as legal UN resolution.
- Escalates US-UK tensions in 2026 diplomacy.
London (The Londoner News) February 19, 2026 - President Donald Trump has dramatically reversed his administration's stance on the United Kingdom's controversial Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius, announcing opposition to the pact and hinting at potential sanctions against Britain. The unexpected flip, revealed during a White House briefing today, centres on fears that the agreement could jeopardise US strategic interests, particularly the vital military base on Diego Garcia. This development marks a significant rift in longstanding US-UK relations, coming just months after the deal's negotiation under the previous UK government.
What prompted Trump's sudden reversal on the Chagos deal?
The Chagos Archipelago, a cluster of over 60 islands in the Indian Ocean, has long been a flashpoint in decolonisation debates. In October 2025, the UK agreed to transfer sovereignty of the islands excluding the Diego Garcia military facility to Mauritius, following a 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion and a 2024 UN General Assembly resolution demanding the handover. As reported by James Rothwell of The Telegraph, the deal allowed Britain to retain control of Diego Garcia indefinitely through a 99-year lease, with the US initially welcoming the arrangement as it secured the base's future.
However, in a stark pivot this week, Trump declared the deal "a strategic disaster waiting to happen", according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during today's briefing. Leavitt attributed the change to new intelligence assessments highlighting vulnerabilities in the lease structure, amid rising Chinese influence in the region.
Diplomatic sources close to the matter, cited by Jennifer Hansler of CNN, suggest Trump's reversal stems from internal pressure by Pentagon officials concerned about Mauritius's neutral stance towards Beijing. The US views Diego Garcia, a linchpin for operations in the Middle East and Asia as non-negotiable, with over 2,000 US personnel stationed there supporting B-2 bomber deployments and surveillance missions.
Why is Diego Garcia so critical to US interests?
Diego Garcia's strategic value cannot be overstated. Established in the 1960s as part of a Cold War-era deal, the atoll hosts one of the US's most important forward-operating bases, facilitating airstrikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potential contingencies against China. According to David Brennan of Newsweek, the base has been pivotal in every major US military operation since the 1991 Gulf War, with its remote location offering unparalleled stealth capabilities.
Trump's concerns, as articulated by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, focus on the lease's fine print. This echoes longstanding Republican hawks' fears, amplified in 2026 amid escalating US-China naval tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
As noted by Robert Wright of Financial Times, the original US position under Trump's first term supported the UK's negotiations, viewing the deal as stabilising. But post-inauguration reviews in January 2026 reportedly uncovered clauses permitting Mauritius veto rights over base expansions, prompting the U-turn. The Pentagon has invested billions modernising facilities, including a new deep-water pier completed in 2025.
How has the UK government responded to Trump's opposition?
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's administration has expressed astonishment at the flip.
In a statement from Downing Street, Foreign Secretary David Lammy reaffirmed the deal's legality: "This agreement honours international law and safeguards our shared defence interests. We are consulting urgently with Washington."
Gordon Rayner, political editor of The Daily Telegraph, reports that UK officials were blindsided, having secured US blessing in December 2025. Starmer, facing domestic backlash from Tory critics like Kemi Badenoch, who called the original deal "a shameful capitulation", now navigates a transatlantic crisis.
Badenoch, in Parliament today, demanded: "Will the Prime Minister scrap this folly before America imposes real consequences?"
Labour MPs defending the pact cite economic benefits, including £3 billion in Mauritian investments for Chagos communities. Yet, backbench rebels worry about broader implications for the AUKUS pact. As Henry Zeffman of The Times writes, No.10 sources admit privately the US shift complicates post-Brexit alliances. Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam welcomed the original deal but dismissed Trump's threats as "unwarranted interference".
In a Port Louis press conference, he asserted: "Sovereignty is non-negotiable; the lease protects everyone’s interests."
Coverage by Al Jazeera's Rebecca Conway highlights Mauritius's triumphant narrative, framing the 2025 pact as vindication after decades of legal battles.
Chagossian exiles, represented by Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos Refugees Group, express mixed views. The deal promises resettlement on outer islands, but human rights groups like Reprieve criticise it for perpetuating displacement.
What are the potential consequences of US sanctions?
Trump's sanction threats, first raised in a Truth Social post yesterday, could target UK firms involved in the handover.
"If Britain proceeds, expect tariffs and restrictions," he posted, linking to Pentagon briefings.
Economists, per Sky News business editor Ian King, warn of ripple effects on City of London finance, given US-UK trade at £300 billion annually.
Defence analysts like Sidharth Kaushal of RUSI argue escalation is unlikely, but the rhetoric strains NATO cohesion. "Diego Garcia's security is paramount; Trump prioritises hard power," Kaushal told Politico.
Historical precedents, such as Reagan's 1982 pressure on Spain over Gibraltar, suggest Washington holds leverage.
In Westminster, shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel accused Starmer of "failing the special relationship", urging treaty suspension. Patel's intervention, reported by GB News, gains traction amid 2026 polls showing public unease over sovereignty losses. The saga traces to 1965, when Britain detached Chagos from Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Amid independence talks, the US funded the purchase, evicting 1,500 Chagossians. Court challenges peaked in 2019 with the ICJ ruling BIOT unlawful.
UN votes in 2021 and 2024 passed near-unanimously (116-6) demanding reversal. As chronicled by The Guardian's Owen Bowcott, UK's 2024 election pledge under Labour accelerated talks. Trump’s 2025 nod came via envoy Victoria Coates, but 2026 intelligence allegedly showing Chinese port bids in Mauritius shifted calculus.
Who are the key players influencing Trump's decision?
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly led the review. Hegseth, a Trump loyalist, briefed Congress: "No lease compromises American supremacy."
Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell flags Beijing's shadow, per Foreign Policy.
On the UK side, ex-PM Rishi Sunak regrets the deal, telling Spectator: "We locked in security; now politics intervenes."
Mauritius leverages Global South support, with India backing sovereignty but quietly favouring US base. US officials cite Chinese firms' bids for Mauritian infrastructure as red flags. A 2025 Belt and Road project near Port Louis raised alarms, per Reuters intelligence leaks. Admiral John Aquilino of Indo-Pacific Command testified last year: "Strategic ports enable encirclement."
Beijing denies designs on Diego Garcia, but state media mocks Trump's flip as "hegemonic panic". Analysts like Bonnie Glaser of German Marshall Fund predict proxy jostling, with Chagos symbolising great-power contest.
How might this affect transatlantic relations long-term?
The row tests the "special relationship" post-Trump's 2025 reelection. Biden-era harmony contrasts with Trump's transactional style.
Atlantic Council's Josh Lipsky warns: "Sanctions would echo Suez 1956, eroding trust."
UK hawks push AUKUS expansion for deterrence, while doves seek EU mediation. Chagossians demand voice, with UN rapporteur Ginevra Le Moli urging inclusive talks. As 2026 unfolds, resolution hinges on backchannel diplomacy. The deal awaits UK Parliament ratification in spring 2026. Challenges loom via Chagossian lawsuits or ICJ referrals. Human Rights Watch's Pooja Patel critiques: "Justice delayed for exiles." Trump could invoke US-UK 1966 treaty, asserting veto. Mauritius eyes WTO if sanctioned, claiming discrimination. Experts like Philippe Sands KC, who argued 2019 ICJ, predict appeals court battles.
Broader implications for decolonisation efforts?
Chagos exemplifies fading empires' dilemmas. Similar disputes Falklands, Gibraltarwatch closely. African Union praises Mauritius, pressuring France on Reunion. Al Jazeera op-ed by Lamis Andoni frames it as "post-colonial reckoning".
Trump's stance emboldens hawks globally, per Foreign Affairs. Yet, climate-vulnerable Chagos faces rising seas, urging cooperative stewardship. India's S Jaishankar urges restraint, valuing Diego Garcia for Quad ops. Australia echoes, citing AUKUS. France, with nearby bases, stays neutral. UN's Ralph Guede calls for dialogue. Domestic US: Democrats like Chris Murphy slam Trump’s "chaos diplomacy"; GOP cheers base protection.