Trump says Starmer’s Chagos Islands deal was ‘the best he could make’
The US president said he had ‘very productive discussions’ with the Prime Minister about Diego Garcia, where a UK-US military base is located.
Donald Trump has suggested Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands deal was the “best he could make” in an apparent signal of support after attacking the agreement last month.
The US president, who weeks ago branded the deal an “act of great stupidity”, said he had “very productive discussions” with the Prime Minister about Diego Garcia, where a UK-US military base is located.
Under the deal, which will cost £35 billion over the next century, the UK will cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius but lease back the facility on the island.
In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said: “I understand that the deal Prime Minister Starmer has made, according to many, (is) the best he could make.
“However, if the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers US operations and forces at our base, I retain the right to militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia.
“Let it be known that I will never allow our presence on a base as important as this to ever be undermined or threatened by fake claims or environmental nonsense.”
Downing Street said the two leaders “agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint UK-US base of Diego Garcia” in a conversation on Thursday.
“On Ukraine, the leaders discussed the ongoing peace negotiations. The Prime Minister expressed his deep concern about Putin’s continued barbaric attacks on innocent civilians, particularly in freezing temperatures,” a No 10 spokeswoman said.
“They also agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint UK–US base on Diego Garcia, which remains vital to shared security interests. The UK and US will continue to work closely on the implementation of the deal, they agreed.”
Mr Trump in January lambasted the agreement as an “act of total weakness” and claimed the site of the military base was being given away “for no reason whatsoever”.
His criticism came as transatlantic tensions flared over his ambitions to take control of Greenland, with the Prime Minister accusing him at the time of making the comments to pressure Britain to lift its objections.
Legislation to ratify the deal is in its closing stages in Parliament but progress has been delayed since the president’s outburst.
On Tuesday, No 10 said the two leaders had agreed their governments would work to “guarantee the future operation of the base” in the first known discussion between them since Mr Trump’s extraordinary attack.
Last week, the Prime Minister insisted the Republican president initially backed the deal “in very clear terms” following sign-off by US intelligence agencies.
He pointed to public expressions of support from the US president and his top team, who praised the deal as a “monumental achievement”, securing the long-term future of the shared Diego Garcia base.
Earlier this week, Downing Street insisted the case for the Chagos Islands deal was “crystal clear” after Lord Mandelson claimed in an interview with the Times there had been a “wobble” over it within the Government.
The former ambassador to the US, who is at the centre of a storm over his ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, claimed there were concerns over the cost and legal necessity of the agreement.
“Claims that we negotiated this deal solely because of the 2019 ICJ (International Court of Justice) advisory opinion are simply wrong,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said later.
“That wasn’t the only challenge we faced.
“Without a deal, Mauritius would inevitably pursue a legally-binding judgment, and that judgment would then be applied by countries and international organisations alike.
“And without a deal, we’d face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base.”
Asked about the “wobble”, the spokesman said: “There was a change of governments in both the US and Mauritius in November 2024.
“It’s only right that both new administrations would want to understand the details of the deal, and the deal has subsequently undergone an extremely high level of scrutiny, both through the parliamentary process and through two US administrations.”
