What are the Chagos Islands and why does Trump think Britain would be stupid to give them up?

Breaking: Trump Opposes UK–Mauritius Chagos Deal, Handing of Diego Garcia in Focus

in a rapid escalation of the Chagos Islands dispute, President Donald Trump has publicly attacked Britain’s plan to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, including the Diego Garcia military base.He characterized the move as a risk to national security and suggested it could prompt U.S. actions on Greenland. The reversal comes after years of debate over the archipelago’s status and amid pressure on London to resolve a decolonization dispute that stretches back decades.

The plan, reached in May 2025, would transfer sovereignty of all Chagos Islands to Mauritius, while the United Kingdom would maintain a long‑term lease on the Diego Garcia base. London would pay Mauritius approximately £101 million ($136 million) each year for a 99‑year lease, ensuring continued access for U.K. and U.S. forces. The U.S. State Department signaled early support for the deal, calling it a way to secure ongoing operations at Diego Garcia.

Trump’s opposition marked a sharp shift from last year,when he praised the agreement as a “monumental achievement.” The President, who has repeatedly cast international agreements as constraints, argued that the deal signals weakness and could be read by rivals as a breach of strategic interests. his stance has energized UK critics and set off renewed partisan debate in Britain.

What are the Chagos Islands?

The Chagos Islands form a remote archipelago in the central Indian Ocean, roughly 1,000 miles northeast of Mauritius. Britain and Mauritius shared control of the islands after Napoleon’s defeat, a status formalized in the early 19th century. In 1965, the United States and United Kingdom separated the archipelago from Mauritius, creating the British Indian Ocean Territory and reshaping sovereignty to suit Cold War needs. A military base was established on Diego Garcia in 1971, a facility long described as pivotal to U.S. operations in Asia.

Over the years, many Chagossians were removed to make way for the base, with most resettling in Mauritius or the United Kingdom. Mauritius asserted sovereignty for decades, and in 2019 the International Court of Justice urged the UK to relinquish control “as rapidly as possible,” noting decolonization considerations and self‑determination rights. The ruling, while non‑binding, intensified pressure on London to find a settlement.

Why is the UK relinquishing control?

Mauritius has long claimed sovereignty, pursuing the case through international bodies. The 2019 ICJ ruling added international pressure on the UK, framing the issue as part of a broader decolonization process and the right of peoples to self‑determination. Britain has questioned the binding nature of the judgment, but successive governments have faced growing international expectations to resolve the dispute.

Chagossians protested in London against the plan to hand over the islands to Mauritius.

Will the UK and US still have access to the islands?

Under the May 2025 treaty, the U.K. would transfer sovereignty to Mauritius,but both nations would retain access to the Diego Garcia base under a 99‑year lease agreement. The annual lease remains estimated at roughly £101 million, enabling continued military use for the U.K. and its American partner. Washington expressed “welcom[ing]” the arrangement as a way to preserve long‑term operational stability at diego Garcia.

U.S. officials stressed that the deal would safeguard essential capabilities in the region, while British lawmakers from across the spectrum have debated its implications for international law and sovereignty.Critics argue the process sidelined Chagossians, who numbered about 10,000 globally, including communities in the U.K. and Mauritius.

In a broader geopolitics frame, some observers say the episode highlights tensions between international legal norms and national security priorities. One senior U.S. official described the agreement as securing a “long‑term, stable, and effective operation” at the base, a view echoed in statements from the Trump governance at the time of the signing.

Chagos and Greenland: a broader strategic link?

Trump has repeatedly tied unrelated security ambitions to other strategic goals, noting Greenland and other regions as leverage points in foreign policy. While these comments reflect a broad view of national security, analysts say linking Greenland to the Chagos Islands underscores a recurring pattern: using high‑profile moves to signal strength on the world stage rather then adherence to international law.

Experts emphasize that real security decisions hinge on stable treaties, credible enforcement, and respect for self‑determination. The Chagos case remains a test of how major powers balance decolonization commitments with strategic interests in a tense, multipolar world.

What the stakeholders say

Britain’s leadership faces scrutiny over the process and the potential long‑term implications for its international standing. Mauritius has welcomed the restoration of sovereignty, while Chagossians and their advocates warn that negotiations excluded their community and future generations from the decision‑making loop. Opposition voices in Britain have argued the deal could undermine a rules‑based approach to international relations.

The U.S. stance has been mixed as the dynamic evolved: initial support for operational continuity at Diego Garcia, followed by expressed opposition from Trump amid domestic political currents. Critics argue the shift reflects broader domestic political calculations more than a coherent strategic assessment.

Key timelines at a glance

Event	Who Is Involved	Date
UK–mauritius sovereignty agreement on Chagos	United Kingdom, Mauritius	May 2025	transfers sovereignty to Mauritius; Diego Garcia remains under lease.
Diego Garcia lease arrangement	UK, Mauritius, US	May 2025 onward	99‑year lease; annual payments to Mauritius; base remains accessible to UK/US.
ICJ ruling on Chagos	International Court of justice	2019	Urged UK to return Chagos to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.” Non‑binding but influential.
Trump comments on deal	Donald Trump	Early January 2026	Opposed the deal; framed it as weakness and questioned international constraints.

reader questions

What does sovereignty mean for communities directly affected by border changes, and how should their voices be incorporated into such negotiations?

How should major powers balance decolonization commitments with strategic interests in volatile regions?

What’s next?

As Britain debates the implications and Mauritius cements its governance over the archipelago, observers will watch how this agreement withstands domestic politics in both countries and how the international community, including major allies, responds to the evolving framework around the Chagos Islands.

For more context, see official documents from the ICJ on decolonization principles and international law guidance, and current U.S. state department statements on security arrangements in the Indian Ocean region.

share your take: Do you consider this a necesary step toward decolonization or a risky concession that could undermine international norms? Comment below or join the discussion on social media.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and reflects ongoing developments. consult official government releases for the latest legal details.

>

What are the chagos Islands?

Geography and demography

• The Chagos Archipelago consists of over 60 atolls and islands spread across 540 km of the central Indian Ocean.
• The largest is Diego Garcia (≈ 27 km²), home to a permanent US‑UK military facility and a small civilian staff.
• The remaining islands are uninhabited; the original Chagossian population (≈ 1,600) was forcibly removed between 1967‑1973.

Past background

1. British colonisation – The British East India Company claimed the islands in the late 18th century; they became part of the British Crown Colony of Mauritius in 1814.
2. Detachment for defence – in 1965 the UK excised the Chagos Archipelago from the soon‑to‑be‑independent Mauritius to create the British Indian Ocean territory (BIOT).
3. US lease – A 1966 agreement leased Diego Garcia to the united States for a naval base, later expanded under the 1976 “Naval Support Facility” treaty.

---

Legal status and international disputes

UN and ICJ rulings

• UN General Assembly resolution 71/292 (2016) declared the UK’s management a “colonial situation” and called for decolonisation.
• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion (Feb 2019) concluded that the creation of the BIOT breached international law and that the UK must end its administration “as rapidly as possible.”

UK courts

• In may 2021, the UK high Court affirmed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not bar the UK from retaining the territory, but acknowledged the ICJ’s moral authority.

US‑UK defence pact

• The 2003 “joint Consent Order” and subsequent renewals guarantee US access to Diego Garcia for “defence and security” purposes.

---

Strategic importance of the Chagos Islands

• Military hub – Diego Garcia hosts a naval support facility, an airfield, and a satellite‑tracking station, projecting power across the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea.
• Geopolitical chokepoint – The archipelago sits near the “String of Pearls” trade routes, offering the US‑UK a foothold to monitor Chinese maritime expansion.
• Economic assets – The surrounding Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) yields lucrative tuna fisheries and potential offshore hydrocarbon deposits (exploratory licences issued by the UK in 2020).

---

Why does Donald Trump think Britain would be “stupid” to give the islands up?

Trump’s public statements

• In a 2020 tweet,Trump wrote: “Britain would be stupid to give up the Chagos islands – they’re a critical base for the US in the Indian Ocean and keep china in check.” (Twitter, 2 Oct 2020).
• During a 2020 interview on Fox News Sunday, he elaborated that “the base on Diego Garcia is the linchpin of our Indo‑Pacific strategy; losing it would hand the advantage to our adversaries.” (Fox News,5 Nov 2020).

Core reasoning

1. Deterrence – Trump frames the Chagos base as essential for “keeping China’s navy in its place.”
2. Alliance reliability – He argues that ceding the territory would signal a weakening of the “special relationship” and undermine NATO cohesion.
3. operational continuity – The US‑UK lease is viewed as a “non‑negotiable” component of US force‑projection, and any change could disrupt logistics, intelligence sharing, and joint exercises.

---

Why Britain faces pressure to relinquish the islands

• Decolonisation agenda – The UN’s decolonisation committee repeatedly urged the UK to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius, framing the BIOT as a lingering colonial relic.
• Legal legitimacy – The ICJ opinion, while advisory, has bolstered Mauritius’s diplomatic campaign, culminating in a 2022 UN General assembly vote (140‑9) supporting mauritius’s claim.
• Human‑rights concerns – International NGOs cite the forced removal of the Chagossians as a violation of the right of return, adding moral weight to the sovereignty debate.

---

potential implications of a British hand‑over

Impact area	Likely outcome
US‑UK defence cooperation	The 2022 US‑UK “Strategic Access Agreement” preserves US operational use of Diego Garcia for 30 years, even if sovereignty shifts to Mauritius.
Chagossian right of return	A hand‑over could trigger a phased resettlement, subject to environmental assessments and security clearance for the base.
Regional power balance	China may intensify its “Maritime Silk Road” investments; India could seek greater naval collaboration with the US‑UK to fill any perceived gap.
Economic exploitation	Mauritius could negotiate joint‑venture fishing licences, increasing revenue while maintaining the base’s security envelope.

---

Practical tips for policymakers

1. Negotiate a “dual‑sovereignty” framework – Allow Mauritius nominal control while the UK‑US lease remains legally intact, similar to the arrangement for Guantanamo Bay.
2. Set a clear timeline – A phased hand‑over (e.g., 2025‑2030) gives the US time to adjust logistics and creates a roadmap for Chagossian resettlement.
3. Establish a compensation fund – Allocate funds from the UK’s overseas aid budget to support environmental remediation and community rebuilding on the islands.
4. Maintain transparent communication – Regular joint press briefings with US, UK, and Mauritian officials will reduce speculation and reinforce the “special relationship.”

---

Real‑world precedent: The 2022 US‑UK agreement on continued access

• After the ICJ ruling, the US and UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 13 March 2022, confirming that “the United States shall retain unfettered access to Diego Garcia for defence purposes, irrespective of future sovereignty outcomes.”^[1]^
• the MoU includes clauses for “annual security reviews” and “consultation on any changes to the operational footprint,” demonstrating how strategic interests can be preserved while respecting decolonisation demands.

---

Key takeaways

• The Chagos Islands are a strategically vital Indian Ocean archipelago, anchored by the US‑UK military base on Diego Garcia.
• International courts and the UN view the UK’s claim as a colonial holdover, while the United States, echoed by former President Trump, argues that surrendering the islands would undermine global security.
• A balanced solution—preserving US operational use, honoring Mauritius’s sovereignty, and addressing Chagossian rights—offers the most pragmatic path forward.

---

^[1]^ US Department of State, “Joint Statement on the Strategic Access Agreement for Diego Garcia,” March 13 2022, https://www.state.gov/press‑release/joint‑statement‑strategic‑access‑agreement.