President Donald Trump said the United States retains the right to reinforce and secure the Diego Garcia air base if future arrangements over the Chagos Islands endanger American military operations.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump said Feb. 5 that the United States retains the right to “militarily secure” the Diego Garcia air base in the Chagos Islands if future political or legal arrangements threaten U.S. access to the strategically vital installation.
Trump’s remarks followed renewed criticism of the United Kingdom’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius under an agreement signed in October 2025. Under the terms of that deal, the Diego Garcia base would remain under British control for at least 99 years, preserving access for U.S. forces operating from the base.
Trump has previously denounced the agreement, calling it an “act of total weakness,” but said he held “productive discussions” with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the issue. In a Feb. 5 post on Truth Social, Trump said he accepted that Starmer had negotiated the best deal available while warning that U.S. military access would not be compromised.
“I understand that the deal Prime Minister Starmer has made, according to many, the best he could make,” Trump said. “However, if the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers U.S. operations and forces at our base, I retain the right to militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia.”
The United States considers Diego Garcia a critical hub for military operations across the Middle East, East Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. Trump emphasized the base’s strategic location and its importance to U.S. national security.
“We have the most powerful Military in the World,” Trump said. “Our Military Operations, over the course of the last year, were successful because of the strength of our warfighters, modern capability of our equipment and, very importantly, the strategic location of our Military Bases for staging, and other reasons. 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.”
A spokesperson for Downing Street said Feb. 5 that Starmer and Trump “agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint UK-U.S. base on Diego Garcia, which remains vital to shared security interests.” The spokesperson added that both governments would continue to work closely on implementing the agreement.
Starmer said in January that the Chagos issue had been raised repeatedly with the White House and that the Trump administration had already reviewed and supported the agreement at the agency level.
Legislation to implement the treaty is currently in the final stages of scrutiny in the British Parliament, a process known as “ping pong,” in which amendments are exchanged between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The agreement includes payments totaling 3 billion pounds, or about $4 billion, from the UK to Mauritius over the term of the deal, with an option to extend the lease for an additional 50 years. The treaty has drawn opposition from several Conservative Party lawmakers.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said last month that Starmer was “giving away” UK territory and paying 35 billion pounds, or about $47.5 billion, “for the privilege.” Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith echoed that criticism in a Jan. 20 post on X, saying that the government was undermining British sovereignty.
“Donald Trump is right: Labour are betraying Britain by giving away the Chagos Islands,” Griffith wrote. “Keir Starmer is paying Mauritius £34bn to seize our sovereignty and make us a tenant in our own military base.”
Defending the agreement during a Jan. 28 debate in Parliament, British Foreign Office Minister Seema Malhotra said the treaty safeguarded British and allied interests. She said the deal “guarantees full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for generations to come.”
Malhotra also rejected opposition claims about the cost of the agreement, calling the figures “wildly exaggerated,” and said the government’s estimates had been independently verified.
Original article
Comments