The US president, Donald Trump, has changed his mind on the issue several times. While initially granting support for the deal, in January 2026, he called it an \u201cact of great stupidity\u201d. In February 2026, Trump told the UK on social media<\/a>: \u201cDO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!\u201d, saying that the US might want the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia to be used in operations against Iran.<\/p>\n Under the deal, Mauritius would allow the US and UK to access, maintain, and invest in the base for an initial 99-year period, which can be extended if both parties agree. In exchange, the UK will pay Mauritius an annual average of \u00a3101 million for 99 years in 2025-26 prices, totalling around \u00a33.4 billion<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the UK, there has been opposition to the deal from the Conservatives<\/a>. Their leader, Kemi Badenoch, argued that the payments to Mauritius are unacceptable, and questioned Mauritius\u2019s ties to China, claiming UK national security is being put at risk. This opposition is despite the fact the previous Conservative government started negotiating the treaty with Mauritius. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has claimed<\/a> that there is no legal basis for the deal.<\/p>\n \n Sovereignty over the Chagos Islands has been disputed<\/a> since the UK detached them from the colony of Mauritius in 1965, before Mauritius gained independence in 1968. A treaty between the UK and US in 1966 allowed the US to lease Diego Garcia for a joint military base on British territory, in exchange for which the US reportedly gave the UK a discount<\/a> on nuclear weapons technology. This treaty was based on the UK having sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, so \u2013under the proposed deal \u2013 it would need amending to state that the US is leasing the military base\u2019s land from Mauritius, rather than the UK. <\/p>\n The Chagossians were removed from their homeland<\/a> to make way for the airbase. The rights of the Chagossians and their descendants (who were British subjects) were removed by the UK government. <\/p>\n Following a decades-long campaign, several international court decisions in recent years have held that this action was illegal, and Mauritius should have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. This pressure led to the negotiation of the 2025 treaty between the UK and Mauritius.<\/p>\n To give domestic legal force to the new treaty, legislation would have to be passed. This was the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory bill<\/a>, which had nearly passed all its parliamentary stages. But the UK government has run out of time to pass it in this parliamentary session, and there are no plans to introduce a new bill next parliament. In effect, the deal is dead.<\/p>\n The UK is now in a difficult position. It retains sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, but there remain several international law judgments declaring that the UK must return the islands to Mauritius, to complete the decolonisation process. <\/p>\n The UK is committing a serious and ongoing violation of international law by retaining sovereignty. Countries that commit such violations can be ostracised by the international community. For example, Turkey\u2019s application to join the European Union has stalled in part due to its support<\/a> for the breakaway (and unrecognised) Northern Cypriot Republic.<\/p>\n There is also now further uncertainty over the future of the Chagossians. Under the UK-Mauritius treaty, the Chagossians would have had a right to return to some of the Chagos Islands, save for Diego Garcia. The UK has historically banned the return of the Chagossians to all of the islands.<\/p>\n Mauritius has now announced that it will continue to pursue its claim to sovereignty. Dhananjay Ramful, the Mauritian foreign minister, told an Indian Ocean conference<\/a> in Mauritius that his government would regain control over the territory, saying: \u201cWe will spare no effort to seize any diplomatic or legal avenue to complete the decolonisation process\u201d.<\/p>\n Mauritius is likely to pursue its case through the United Nations, as it has done in recent years. This could lead to the International Court of Justice being asked to rule again on the legality of the UK\u2019s actions. While ICJ judgments are not binding, they have political force.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n Why Trump is attacking the UK over Chagos Islands \u2013 and what it tells us about Britain\u2019s place in the world<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\nInternational pressure<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/280493\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n