Trump 'close to BACKING Chagos deal again' after pleas from Starmer

Donald Trump looks poised to back the Chagos 'surrender' deal despite fears over a crucial military base.

UK sources suggested the US is sounding more positive about the plan to hand the territory to Mauritius - and pay £35billion to lease back Diego Garcia for 99 years.

However, the situation is still said to be fluid and Mr Trump's support is not a 'done deal'.

The shift comes after Keir Starmer personally broached the issue with the president earlier this week.

Last month Mr Trump joined widespread condemnation of the package, still going through Parliament, despite initially endorsing it. 

He lambasted the agreement as an 'act of great stupidity', an 'act of total weakness' and claimed the site of the Diego Garcia base was being given away 'for no reason whatsoever'.

However, Sir Keir accused the US of changing stance as a pressure tactic in Mr Trump's bid to seize Greenland from Nato ally Denmark.

The White House has since retreated from threats over the Arctic island, after a backlash from other Western powers.

The government has paused the progress of legislation underpinning the Chagos giveaway amid frantic behind-the-scenes lobbying of the American administration.

Sir Keir had appeared to avoid raising the issue directly with Mr Trump until a phone at the beginning of this week.

A sparse Downing Street readout of that call showed the PM and president agreed to 'continue working closely' to secure the future of the UK-US military base at Diego Garcia.

But officials believe the tide is turning in Washington, despite lobbying from prominent UK politicians such as Nigel Farage. 

Downing Street has insisted the case for the Chagos Islands deal is 'crystal clear' after Lord Mandelson claimed there had been a 'wobble' over it within the Government. 

The former US ambassador, who was forced to resign in September over links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, revealed the private concerns in an interview with the Times.

He said he 'became aware of a serious wobble in London over the agreement and its sellability to the British public'.

'That was to do with the price tag and whether we had the total legal obligation to enter the deal and whether the original legal case made for the agreement in Whitehall was as watertight as was claimed,' the peer said. 

'So on the one hand I faced a sceptical US administration and then at another point a wobbly government of my own behind me.'