Never Forget: It Was Trump Who Sunk Starmer’s Chagos Surrender

Donald Trump’s foreign policy record keeps getting stronger.

For decades, the British-owned Chagos archipelago—specifically the joint U.S./U.K. base on the largest island, Diego Garcia—has been a key outpost of American strength in the Indian Ocean. But in the past year, at the height of its strategic significance, lawmakers in London prepared to give away control of the island chain to an ally of Communist China. Their plans have been thwarted.

The decision by the Government to withdraw legislation advancing the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius was an emphatic defeat for Sir Keir Starmer. It’s another humiliation for the embattled socialist Prime Minister, who had made the Chagos deal a top foreign policy priority.

Donald Trump’s opposition proved the deciding factor in sending the Chagos deal to the depths of the Indian Ocean. The president rightly viewed the deal as a massive threat to both American and British security. Without his intervention, Communist China—a long-time ally of Mauritius—is likely to have gained strategic leverage over the United States in the Indo-Pacific.

In our view at The Heritage Foundation, it was clear that Starmer was making a terrible mistake. There seemed to be no strategic advantage; the arguments in favor of the deal hinged on appeasing U.N. elites and “anti-colonialist” Marxists. And when confronted with the massive risks, proponents pointed to Mauritian assurance that America would be “allowed” to keep our base at Diego Garcia. We just had to trust the goodwill of the Chinese Communist Party and their allies for their permission. How comforting!

But Starmer waged an intense foreign lobbying campaign, led by the now-disgraced former ambassador Peter Mandelson, in Washington. The effort found favor among powerful Deep State elements, including former Biden officials, who pushed the deal alongside Mandelson and downplayed its dangers. Alone among Washington, D.C.’s largest think tanks in our campaign against the Chagos surrender, we made our voice heard in testimony before Congress, in the American media and alongside Congressional critics, including two especially outstanding senators: John Kennedy and Ted Cruz.

Meanwhile, in London, the scale of the challenge was proving equally daunting. Outnumbered British politicians waged a Churchillian battle. In the House of Commons, the group included, shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith; in the House of Lords were Dan Hannan, Martin Callanan, Kate Hoey, and the indefatigable Ross Kempsell.

In addition, Claire Bullivant’s Great British PAC played an indispensable role, as did the courageous group of Chagos Islanders led by First Minister of the Chagossian government-in-exile Misley Mandarin and British Army captain-turned-Conservative MP-turned-Chagos campaigner Adam Holloway. But due to the Labour Party’s large majority in Parliament, there was only one man in the world who could realistically stop the deal.

The fight in London bought vital time in Washington for Donald Trump to get involved—and when he did, he became the world’s most powerful opponent. President Trump condemned the agreement and torpedoed it, saving America and Britain from a dangerous reality that would have taken effect by the end of the year.

We are immensely grateful to President Trump for his bold defense of the American and British people. His action saved the U.S./U.K. special relationship from an act of reckless self-harm attempted by a Prime Minister who, like the Chagos deal itself, is sinking fast.

Kevin D. Roberts, PhD, was named President of The Heritage Foundation in October 2021. He succeeded former Heritage President Kay C. James as the seventh President in the organization’s 50-year history. In September 2023, Roberts was named President of Heritage Action for America and serves both organizations in a joint role.

Reprinted with permission from The Heritage Foundation by Kevin D. Roberts, PhD.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.