Chagos Deal Off - For Now.

Report from GB News/George Bunn and Marcus Donaldson

With additional commentary from KJM Today

January 24, 2026

Sir Keir Starmer has been compelled to withdraw his Chagos Island Bill amid fierce American opposition to the agreement.

President Donald Trump condemned Britain's proposal to transfer the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius earlier this week, describing it as "an act of great stupidity".

The legislation had been scheduled for debate in the House of Lords on Monday but was postponed on Friday evening, according to The Telegraph.

However, it was delayed following a Tory motion tabled on Friday morning, urging postponement of ratification to prevent potential violations of international law.

Conservative MPs raised concerns that proceeding could breach a 1966 UK-US treaty that enshrines British sovereignty over the island chain.

Reacting to the news, Dame Priti Patel said: “This is a major victory for everyone standing against Keir Starmer’s disgraceful Chagos Surrender.

“In the face of relentless Conservative pressure, Labour have pulled their shameful Bill from Monday’s order paper.

“The deal, which hands British sovereign territory and £35 billion to an ally of China, should be dropped altogether. The Conservatives will continue to fight the surrender every step of the way,” the Shadow Foreign Secretary said.

© GB News/George Bunn and Marcus Donaldson

This report is partly true, based on recent reporting from multiple sources across the political spectrum.

President Trump did indeed publicly label the deal an "act of great stupidity" and "total weakness" in a January 20, 2026, social media post, reversing his earlier support for it and tying the criticism to broader US interests, including his push to acquire Greenland.

This backlash, combined with pressure from UK Conservative and Reform opposition figures, contributed to the government's decision to pull the bill from the House of Lords schedule on January 23.

However, the action isn't a full, permanent withdrawal—descriptions vary by source, with some (like The Independent and GB News) calling it a "withdrawal," while others (such as ITV News, The Spectator, and The Daily Mail) frame it as a "delay," "pause," or "stall" amid ongoing negotiations and US concerns over potential Chinese influence via Mauritius.

The UK government has defended the original deal but appears to be reassessing due to the transatlantic tensions, meaning British sovereignty is preserved for now but could still change if the bill resurfaces.

The post's framing aligns with Reform UK's anti-Labour stance, but it overstates the finality of the bill's status.

However, the negotiations that led to this were not entirely due to the present government. They originated under the previous Conservative government, with formal talks launched on November 3, 2022, by then-Foreign Secretary James Cleverly under Prime Ministers Liz Truss and later Rishi Sunak.

Cleverly was directly responsible for initiating and overseeing the early stages of these sovereignty discussions, committing the UK to resolve the issue in line with international law and ICJ rulings.

The Tories' initial thinking was heavily but not entirely influenced by international law. The 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, which deemed the UK's detachment of Chagos from Mauritius unlawful and called for an end to its administration "as rapidly as possible," played a major role in prompting the 2022 talks—along with a 2019 UN General Assembly resolution urging the same.

Cleverly's announcement emphasized resolving the issue "on the basis of international law," reflecting pressure to align with decolonization norms and self-determination principles.

 However, strategic and diplomatic factors were also key: maintaining the Diego Garcia base amid US concerns, improving UK relations with Global South nations post-Brexit, and avoiding further isolation in international forums.

 Some Conservative voices argued that international law did not compel a full handover, viewing it as a negotiable advisory rather than binding.

International law does not "override" national sovereignty in the strict sense, including in the Chagos dispute—states remain sovereign entities, and international law primarily operates through consent (e.g., treaties) or customary norms that bind without explicit agreement.

 The ICJ's 2019 opinion and related UN resolutions are advisory and non-binding, creating political and diplomatic pressure but no legal enforcement mechanism to compel the UK to cede territory against its will.

Instead, it highlights obligations under decolonization law (e.g., self-determination), but resolution typically comes via negotiation or bilateral agreements, as seen in the UK-Mauritius treaty.

 Critics argue this exposes limits in international law's ability to enforce against powerful states.

There is also the question of displaced islanders, known as the Chagossians (or Ilois), the indigenous inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago who were forcibly removed by the UK between the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia. Around 1,500–2,000 people (plus their descendants, now numbering several thousand) were evicted, often with minimal notice and compensation, and resettled mainly in Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK.

This expulsion has been widely condemned as a human rights violation, including by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2019 advisory opinion, which highlighted the breach of self-determination principles.

Their status remains unsettled.

And one final point:

The Chagos Islands were part of Mauritius when it was a French colony (known as Ile de France), then a British colony after the French ceded it to Britain. The UK then separated the islands from Mauritius in order to build the military base on Diego Garcia before Mauritius gained independence in 1968.

This detachment in 1965—three years prior to independence—is at the heart of Mauritius's long-standing sovereignty claim, upheld in the non-binding 2019 ICJ advisory opinion as unlawful under decolonization principles. While the current pause protects UK control for now, the underlying dispute remains unresolved amid ongoing negotiations and transatlantic tensions.

What’s your view?

Scroll down and leave a Comment using the comments form below

and have your say.

User names are fine.

Or

Use the Get in Touch form at the very bottom of the Home Page

and write a letter for our Reader’s Remarks Page.

You will need to include your name, address and contact details.

Only your name, city/town and county/country will be published

and we can withhold these if you ask.