It marked a striking change in tone from just hours earlier, when Mr Burnham insisted he was “determined” to find a resolution that would allow the agreement with Mauritius to go ahead despite US opposition.

The thorny issue was the most awkward moment as the two leaders held face-to-face talks in the Big Apple.

“No, we were talking about that, and [the islands are] strategically very important. Very important. You know, we had to send our B2 bombers…back home to Missouri, as opposed to flying for a short period of time.

The Labour leader, who was sitting next to him, agreed and said “yeah”.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the Chagos deal is now “dead”.

He posted on X shortly after President Trump’s remarks: “The Chagos deal is dead. Thank God.”

En-route to New York, where he was attending the United Nations General Assembly, Mr Burnham doubled down on plans to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The Prime Minister said he will do “everything possible” to find a resolution to the deal.

Britain agreed to cede sovereignty of the Indian Ocean islands after more than two centuries of control when Sir Keir Starmer was in No 10 last year..

Under the plans the UK would retain a 99-year lease over its biggest island, Diego Garcia, and its strategic military base.

But the legislation ⁠required to implement the agreement was paused in April because of opposition from America.

Senior Tories have warned that the Chagos “surrender” deal has fanned the flames surrounding Argentinian President Javier Milei trying to claim the Falklands.

The Chagos Islands are home to the strategically important joint US-UK Diego Garcia military base, currently being used to refuel and service fighter jets striking Iran.

The deal would hand the islands to Mauritius while spending £101million annually for 99 years to lease back the military base.

The staggering costs would put the total price tag at £34billion in nominal terms while opponents of the deal have suggested it could cost closer to £50billion.

Chagos aside, Mr Burnham will have been pleased with how the 40-minute showdown went.

The two leaders spoke about Israel, Ukraine, the Middle East crisis, Immigration and the Falklands.

Mr Trump said relations between the US and the UK are “more up” now that Andy Burnham is Prime Minister than when Sir Keir Starmer held the role.

During the meeting, Mr Burnham claimed he had “established a good connection” with Mr Trump, adding that the pair had “taken that further today” as they discussed trade, energy and immigration among other topics.

The Prime Minister also stressed that Britain has a “positive story” to tell about itself, in an attempt to draw a line under 10 years of post-Brexit turbulence, in his UN debut.

Following his meeting with the US President Mr Burnham met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and Australian PM Anthony Albanese.

Later, he addressed world leaders at the United Nations, warning that Russia is targeting Britain with AI to create a “distorted and untrue narrative” about the country.

Announcing a new National Centre for Information Defence, he said: “In recent years we have seen an industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment in the UK and many of our allies.

“Russian agencies have used every means at their disposal to spread lies and disinformation and prey on people’s fears.

“They’ve used bots and fake websites. Falsified newspaper articles.

“Forged the branding of 28 British organisations – including universities and the BBC. They’ve amplified far right narratives. And we have evidence that they tried to interfere with the 2019 General Election.”

Mr Burnham said that they have also tried to “stoke tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events”.

The Prime Minister said that the Kremlin spends around £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information.

“On top of that we have seen cyber-attacks on our companies and institutions. And we know that AI will multiply the threat.”

Mr Burnham said that the West had “tiptoed” around this for too long, warning that people who are “struggling with the cost of living” or a “young person not in employment” are going to be “much more vulnerable to this kind of influence”.

Reform’s shadow Chancellor, Robert Jenrick, said: “The disastrous Chagos deal appears dead in the water. Good riddance. It should never have taken the US President to stop the British government sabotaging itself. The billions of pounds that would have been sent to Mauritius must urgently be directed to our armed forces.”

‘A terrible deal!’ Trump blasts Chagos giveaway in awkward moment in Burnham meeting

Donald Trump delivered an awkward warning to Andy Burnham during their first face-to-face meeting, branding Britain’s controversial Chagos Islands agreement a “terrible deal” as the two leaders stood alongside each other at the United Nations in New York.

The US president’s intervention immediately placed one of the most sensitive issues facing Burnham’s new government at the centre of international attention.

Trump did not merely criticise the agreement in private.

Speaking during a brief press appearance following his meeting with Burnham, he made his opposition unmistakable.

“I don’t support it. I think it’s terrible. It was a terrible deal,” Trump said, describing the Chagos Islands as an exceptionally important strategic location.

Burnham, who became prime minister in July, responded cautiously.

He agreed that the government would look at the issue, while later saying Britain would “work hard” to find a resolution acceptable to the different parties.

The diplomatic exchange was significant because the future of the Chagos Islands is no longer simply a dispute between Britain and Mauritius.

It has become directly connected to the strategic interests of the United States, because Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago, hosts a major joint UK-US military facility.

Trump’s blunt intervention

The meeting was otherwise presented as a positive first encounter.

Trump described Burnham as a “natural businessperson” and said the British prime minister had “a lot of assets on his side”.

He also suggested that relations between Washington and London were better under Burnham than under his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

The two leaders discussed trade, energy, immigration and other areas of cooperation. Trump also referred to companies including Rolls-Royce and to wider economic relations between the two countries.

But the atmosphere changed when the Chagos agreement was raised.

Trump described the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius as “ridiculous” and stressed the military importance of Diego Garcia.

His concern is not simply about the islands themselves.

Diego Garcia has played an important role in US and British military operations because of its location in the Indian Ocean.

Trump specifically referred to the use of B-2 bombers during US military operations against Iranian nuclear facilities, arguing that the location’s strategic value had been demonstrated by the need for aircraft to make long journeys from the United States.

His comments made clear that Washington regards the future of the base as a major national-security issue.

What is the Chagos deal?

The dispute goes back decades.

Britain retained control of the Chagos Islands after Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s.

Thousands of Chagossians were subsequently removed from the islands, particularly in connection with the establishment of the military base on Diego Garcia.

Mauritius has long argued that the islands should form part of its sovereign territory.

An International Court of Justice advisory opinion in 2019 supported Mauritius’s position that Britain’s administration of the territory should end.

Britain subsequently negotiated an agreement with Mauritius under which sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be transferred to Mauritius while Britain and the United States would retain access to Diego Garcia.

The agreement included a 99-year arrangement intended to protect continued operation of the military base.

Under the terms negotiated by the previous British government, Mauritius was also due to receive substantial payments. ITV reported that the arrangement involved £165 million a year for the first three years and £120 million annually from the fourth year.

That financial element has itself attracted criticism.

Supporters of the agreement have argued that securing the long-term status of the military base while resolving the sovereignty dispute provides strategic and legal certainty.

Critics have questioned why Britain should transfer sovereignty and then pay for continued access to the territory.

Trump clearly belongs to the second camp.

Burnham inherits a complicated problem

The issue was already unresolved when Burnham entered Downing Street.

The previous government had signed the treaty, but the legislation required to implement the agreement had not completed its passage through Parliament.

More importantly, the United States had not accepted the arrangement.

Trump had already criticised the agreement before meeting Burnham.

Reuters reported that implementation had been paused amid US opposition, with Trump previously describing the arrangement as a “big mistake”.

That meant Burnham did not enter his meeting with Trump facing an entirely new disagreement.

Instead, he was dealing with a problem that had already been left unresolved by the previous administration.

The prime minister had also spoken with Mauritius’s Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam shortly before travelling to New York.

Burnham said he wanted Britain, Mauritius and the United States to find a way forward that protected the operation of Diego Garcia and Britain’s national-security interests.

The government now has to revisit the agreement

The consequences of Trump’s intervention became clearer the following day.

Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said the current agreement could not proceed without American support.

He also confirmed that planned payments to Mauritius would not be made “at this stage” while the government reconsidered the arrangement.

That is a major development.

The government is effectively trying to find a new formula that satisfies three parties with different priorities.

Mauritius wants sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

Britain wants to protect its national-security interests and maintain its relationship with Mauritius.

The United States wants to guarantee the security and continued operation of Diego Garcia.

Those objectives overlap in some areas but are not identical.

Why Diego Garcia matters so much

The strategic importance of Diego Garcia is difficult to overstate.

The island lies in the Indian Ocean, far from Britain and the continental United States, but within reach of major regions including the Middle East and South Asia.

The military facility has been used by the United States and Britain for decades.

Its location provides logistical advantages that cannot easily be replicated elsewhere.

Trump’s remarks therefore reflect a wider American concern that any uncertainty over sovereignty could eventually create uncertainty over military access.

The White House appears particularly concerned about whether Mauritius could influence the operation of the base after sovereignty changed.

The British government has attempted to address that concern by negotiating a long-term lease.

But Trump has made clear that the proposed arrangement has not convinced him.

Streeting’s warning

Streeting has been unusually direct about the government’s position.

He said Britain could not simply continue with the existing agreement and hope that American objections disappeared.

“The current deal on Chagos does not have the support of President Trump and the Americans,” Streeting said, according to ITV. He added that the agreement would have to be revised to address American concerns.

He also rejected what he described as an “ostrich strategy” of ignoring the disagreement.

The defence secretary argued that resolving the issue would require difficult negotiations but said those negotiations were necessary because Diego Garcia is such an important national-security asset.

That suggests the government is not preparing simply to abandon the issue.

Instead, it wants to renegotiate.

Mauritius has its own position

Any revised agreement will also have to satisfy Mauritius.

That makes the diplomatic task considerably more complicated.

Mauritius has spent decades pressing its sovereignty claim.

A new British proposal that substantially weakens the sovereignty transfer could therefore face resistance from Port Louis.

At the same time, Britain cannot simply impose new terms on Mauritius without risking the broader objective of reaching a lasting settlement.

Burnham therefore faces a three-way negotiation involving Britain, Mauritius and the United States.

Each has different leverage.

Mauritius has the sovereignty claim.

The United States has enormous strategic importance to the operation of Diego Garcia.

Britain sits between the two because it is the current administering power and a direct participant in the military arrangement.

A difficult inheritance from Starmer

The political consequences also reach back to the previous Labour government.

Keir Starmer’s administration negotiated the original agreement after years of legal and diplomatic pressure over the status of the islands.

Starmer’s government argued that the deal was necessary to provide certainty over Diego Garcia while resolving the sovereignty issue.

Burnham now has to decide whether to preserve that basic structure or seek something substantially different.

Trump’s intervention makes the second option much more likely.

The current government has already acknowledged that the existing deal lacks the support necessary to proceed.

But that does not mean the entire concept of an agreement has been abandoned.

Streeting said the government still wanted a diplomatic treaty that settled the status of Diego Garcia and protected the military capability provided by the base.

An uncomfortable moment for Burnham

The scene in New York was politically revealing.

Trump praised Burnham personally, describing him in unusually warm terms and suggesting the relationship between the two countries could improve.

Yet in the same public appearance, the US president openly attacked a major agreement inherited by the British prime minister’s government.

That left Burnham in the difficult position of appearing close to Washington while simultaneously confronting a serious disagreement over foreign and defence policy.

There was no public confrontation between the two men.

Burnham did not challenge Trump’s description of the deal in front of the cameras.

Instead, he acknowledged that the agreement would need attention.

From a diplomatic perspective, that response avoided turning a disagreement into a public dispute.

But politically, it also ensured that the Chagos issue would dominate coverage of the meeting.

The wider UK-US relationship

The disagreement should not necessarily be interpreted as a breakdown in Britain-US relations.

Trump and Burnham spoke positively about cooperation in several other areas.

The two governments have shared interests in defence, trade, technology and energy.

The Chagos dispute is therefore one major disagreement inside a much broader relationship.

Nevertheless, the issue is unusually sensitive because it combines sovereignty, international law, military strategy and money.

A disagreement over trade tariffs can be renegotiated.

A dispute involving a major military base is much more complicated.

What happens now?

For Burnham, the immediate objective is to find a version of the agreement that Washington can support while remaining acceptable to Mauritius and protecting British interests.

The government has already paused payments and acknowledged that the current arrangement cannot proceed without American backing.

That does not mean the final outcome is known.

The existing treaty could potentially be renegotiated.

The financial arrangements could change.

The precise terms governing Diego Garcia could be revisited.

And the wider sovereignty question could remain subject to further diplomatic negotiations.

British officials have indicated that there is no simple solution.

The Guardian reported that officials believed it was difficult to see the agreement moving forward unless Trump changed his position, although efforts to find a revised arrangement were continuing.

Trump has changed the political equation

The most important consequence of the New York meeting is therefore not simply that Trump called the deal “terrible”.

It is that his opposition has now translated into an explicit requirement from the British government to revisit the arrangement.

Burnham inherited the Chagos agreement.

He did not negotiate its original terms.

But he now has responsibility for deciding what comes next.

That places him at the centre of a diplomatic problem involving one of Britain’s most strategically important overseas locations.

The prime minister will need to balance relations with Mauritius, the United States and the Chagossian community while protecting Britain’s security interests.

Trump’s blunt intervention has made one thing clear.

The Chagos agreement cannot simply continue unchanged while Washington remains opposed.

The next stage will therefore be negotiation rather than implementation.

And after that awkward moment in New York, Burnham has inherited a diplomatic task considerably more difficult than the warm handshakes at the start of his first meeting with Donald Trump might have suggested.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.