By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — A startled British government on Tuesday defended its decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, after U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the plan, which his administration had previously supported.

Trump said that relinquishing the remote Indian Ocean archipelago, home to a strategically important American naval and bomber base, was an act of stupidity that shows why he needs to take over Greenland.

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters after arriving at Palm Beach International Airport, Monday, Jan. 19, 2026, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

“Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER,” he said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

“The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired,” Trump said.

The blast from Trump was a rebuff to efforts by Prime Minister Keir Starmer to calm tensions over Greenland and patch up a frayed trans-Atlantic relationship. Starmer on Monday called Trump’s statements about taking over Greenland “completely wrong,” but called for the rift to be “resolved through calm discussion.”

Remote but strategic

The United Kingdom and Mauritius signed a deal in May to give Mauritius sovereignty over the Chago Islands after two centuries under British control, though the U.K. will lease back Diego Garcia where the U.S. base is located, for at least 99 years.

Related Articles

Top EU official questions Trump’s trustworthiness over Greenland tariff threat

Trump’s voice in a new Fannie Mae ad is generated by artificial intelligence, with his permission

Judge refuses to block new DHS policy limiting Congress members’ access to ICE facilities

How abortion coverage threatens to prevent a congressional deal on health care subsidies

Christian leaders urge protecting worshippers’ rights after protesters interrupt service

The U.S. government welcomed the agreement at the time, saying it “secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-U.K. military facility at Diego Garcia.”

U.K. Cabinet Minister Darren Jones said Tuesday that the agreement would “secure that military base for the next 100 years.”

In recent years, the United Nations and its top court have urged Britain to return the islands to Mauritius, and the British government says it’s acting to protect the security of the base from international legal challenge.

A government spokesperson said that “the U.K. will never compromise on our national security,” and “this deal secures the operations of the joint U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia for generations, with robust provisions for keeping its unique capabilities intact and our adversaries out.”

But the deal has met strong opposition from British opposition parties, which say that giving up the islands puts them at risk of interference by China and Russia.

Islanders who were displaced from the islands to make way for the U.S. base say they weren’t consulted and worry the deal will make it harder for them to go home.

Strong opposition

Legislation to approve the agreement has been passed by the House of Commons, but faced strong opposition in Parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, which approved it, while also passing a “motion of regret” lamenting the legislation. It’s due back in the Commons on Tuesday for further debate.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticized Starmer’s Labour Party government over the agreement.

Badenoch said in an X post that Trump is right and that Starmer’s “plan to give away the Chagos Islands is a terrible policy that weakens UK security and hands away our sovereign territory. And to top it off, makes us and our NATO allies weaker in the face of our enemies.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, an ally of the president said: “Thank goodness Trump has vetoed the surrender of the Chagos islands.”

The U.S. has described the Diego Garcia base, which is home to about 2,500 mostly American personnel, as “an all but indispensable platform” for security operations in the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa.

The Chagos Islands have been under British control since 1814, when they were ceded by France. Britain split the islands away from Mauritius, a former British colony, in 1965, and evicted as many as 2,000 people from the islands so the U.S. military could build the Diego Garcia base.

An estimated 10,000 displaced Chagossians and their descendants now live primarily in Britain, Mauritius and the Seychelles. Some have fought unsuccessfully in U.K. courts for many years for the right to go home.

The U.K.-Mauritius deal calls for a resettlement fund to be created for displaced islanders to help them move back to the islands — apart from Diego Garcia.

By YURI KAGEYAMA, Associated Press Business Writer

TOKYO (AP) — U.S. futures fell sharply and European markets shed more than 1% on tensions driven by the Trump administration’s new tariff threats over Greenland.

Related Articles

NYSE working on a new platform for trading digital tokens around the clock

Hours after ABC News ran a story about Mischief Toy Store, ICE agents arrived at their door

How to conduct your own portfolio makeover

Inequality and unease are rising as elite Davos event opens with pro-business Trump set to attend

What to know about the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos

France’s CAC 40 slipped 1.2% to 8,014.42, while Germany’s DAX lost 1.5% to 24,581.44. Britain’s FTSE 100 shed 1.3% to 10,068.04.

The future for the S&P 500 sank 1.8% while that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1.6%.

Trump said Saturday that he would charge a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland because of their opposition to American control of Greenland.

Trump’s threats have sparked outrage and a flurry of diplomatic activity across Europe, as leaders consider possible countermeasures, including retaliatory tariffs and the first-ever use of the European Union’s anti-coercion instrument.

Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, asserted that America’s relations with Europe remain strong. He urged trading partners to “take a deep breath” and let tensions driven by the tariff threats over Greenland “play out.”

In Asian trading, Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 lost 1.1% to 52,991.10 after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called a snap election for Feb. 8.

Yields on long-term Japanese government bonds surged after Takaichi indicated Monday she planned to dissolve parliament and hold an election, aiming to capitalize on her strong public opinion ratings. She also has proposed temporarily suspending the food tax.

Expectations that Takaichi will take a renewed electoral mandate to raise government spending have revived worries over Japan’s national finances, pushing yields sharply higher, while prices of such investments have fallen as investors sold their holdings. The yield on the 40-year government bond surged to a record 4% on Tuesday, while yields on other long-term bonds also have been surging to decades-high levels.

Chinese markets also declined. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng gave up 0.3% to 26,487.51, while the Shanghai Composite ended nearly unchanged at 4,113.65.

In South Korea, the Kospi dropped 0.4% to 4,885.75, while Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 lost 0.7% to 8,815.90.

Taiwan’s Taiex gained 0.4% and the Sensex in India declined 0.8%.

“Geopolitical events will remain in focus today, particularly any talks that may take place in Davos,” said Michael Brown, a senior research strategist at Pepperstone, referring to the World Economic Forum.

This week will bring more corporate earnings in the U.S. and an update on inflation preferred by the Federal Reserve for making policy decisions.

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s next policy meeting is in two weeks. It’s expected to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged, as it strives to balance a slowing jobs market with inflation, which remains above the Fed’s 2% goal. The Bank of Japan has a monetary policy board meeting ending later this week.

In other dealings early Tuesday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost 49 cents to $58.95 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, shed 33 cents to $63.61 a barrel.

The U.S. dollar fell to 157.83 Japanese yen from 158.09 yen. The euro rose to $1.1716 from $1.1645.

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach contributed to this report.

By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — The European Union’s top official on Tuesday called into question U.S. President Donald Trump’s trustworthiness, saying that he had agreed last year not to impose more tariffs on members of the bloc.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Trump’s planned new tariffs over Greenland “a mistake especially between long-standing allies.”

She was responding to Trump’s announcement that starting February, a 10% import tax will be imposed goods from eight European nations that have rallied around Denmark in the wake of his stepped up calls for the United States to take over the semi-autonomous Danish territory of Greenland.

“The European Union and the United States have agreed to a trade deal last July,” Von der Leyen said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “And in politics as in business – a deal is a deal. And when friends shake hands, it must mean something.”

“We consider the people of the United States not just our allies, but our friends. And plunging us into a downward spiral would only aid the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of the strategic landscape,” she added.

She vowed that the EU’s response “will be unflinching, united and proportional.”

Trump has insisted the U.S. needs the territory for security reasons against possible threats from China and Russia.

Earlier Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said America’s relations with Europe remain strong and urged trading partners to “take a deep breath” and let tensions driven the new tariff threats over Greenland “play out.”

Scott Bessent, US Secretary of the Treasury, holds a speech at the USA House during the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

“I think our relations have never been closer,” he said.

Trump’s threats spark diplomatic flurry across Europe

The American leader’s threats have sparked outrage and a flurry of diplomatic activity across Europe, as leaders consider possible countermeasures, including retaliatory tariffs and the first-ever use of the European Union’s anti-coercion instrument.

The EU has three major economic tools it could use to pressure Washington: new tariffs, suspension of the U.S.-EU trade deal, and the “trade bazooka” — the unofficial term for the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, which could sanction individuals or institutions found to be putting undue pressure on the EU.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump posted on social media that he had spoken with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. He said “I agreed to a meeting of the various parties in Davos, Switzerland,” which is hosting the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting this week.

France’s Macron suggests G-7 meeting in Paris this week

Trump also posted a text message from Emmanuel Macron in which the French president suggested a meeting of members of the Group of Seven industrialized democracies in Paris after the Davos gathering.

Later, however, Trump posted some provocatively doctored images. One showed him planting the U.S. flag next to a sign reading “Greenland, U.S. Territory, Est. 2026.” The other showed Trump in the Oval Office next to a map that showed Greenland and Canada covered with the U.S. Stars and Stripes.

In a sign of how tensions have increased in recent days, thousands of Greenlanders marched over the weekend in protest of any effort to take over their island. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Facebook post Monday that the tariff threats would not change their stance.

“We will not be pressured,” he wrote.

In his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated that the import taxes would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.

Danish minister called for a stronger Europe in the face of Trump’s threats

Denmark’s minister for European affairs called Trump’s tariff threats “deeply unfair.” He said that Europe needs to become even stronger and more independent, while stressing there is “no interest in escalating a trade war.”

Related Articles

Trump’s voice in a new Fannie Mae ad is generated by artificial intelligence, with his permission

Judge refuses to block new DHS policy limiting Congress members’ access to ICE facilities

How abortion coverage threatens to prevent a congressional deal on health care subsidies

Christian leaders urge protecting worshippers’ rights after protesters interrupt service

RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement has picked up steam in statehouses. Here’s what to expect in 2026

“You just have to note that we are on the edge of a new world order, where having power has unfortunately become crucial, and we see a United States with an enormous condescending rhetoric towards Europe,” Marie Bjerre told Danish public broadcaster DK on Tuesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of Davos, California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Europe’s response to Trump’s tariff threats as “pathetic” and “embarrassing,” and urged European leaders to unite and stand up to the United States.

“It is time to get serious, and stop being complicit,” Newsom told reporters. “It’s time to stand tall and firm, have a backbone.”

European markets open sharply lower

European markets opened sharply lower on Tuesday and U.S. futures fell further as tensions rose over Greenland. Benchmarks in Germany, France and Britain fell about 1%. The future for the S&P 500 lost 1.5% and the Dow future was down 1.4%.

With U.S. trading closed Monday for a holiday, financial markets had a relatively muted response to Trump’s threat to put a 10% extra tariff on exports from eight European countries that have opposed his push to exert control over Greenland. Jonas Golterman of Capital Economics described the situation as a lose-lose one for both the U.S. and the targets of Trump’s anger. He said, “It certainly fells like the kind of situation that could get worse before it gets better.”

UK replies to Trump’s Chagos Islands criticism

In another sign of tension between allies, the British government on Tuesday defended its decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Trump attacked the plan, which his administration previously supported.

Trump said that relinquishing the remote Indian Ocean archipelago, home to a strategically important American naval and bomber base, was an act of stupidity that shows why he needs to take over Greenland.

The United Kingdom signed a deal in May to give Mauritius sovereignty over the islands, though the U.K. will lease back the island of Diego Garcia, where the U.S. base is located, for at least 99 years.

AP writers Sylvie Corbet in Paris, Jill Lawless in London and Elaine Kurtenbach in Bangkok contributed to this report.

Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of Renee Good’s family. You’re mourning her death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and you want justice.

So you visit a lawyer to see what can be done.

First, you want to help in any criminal investigation of the officer. You’ve got information about Good’s intentions when she protested ICE activities — information you think might be relevant to prosecutors looking into the case.

“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “The administration has already declared that the agent did no wrong, and the Justice Department’s civil rights division hasn’t opened an investigation into whether the agent violated Renee’s constitutional rights.

“Federal officials are, however, investigating Renee and may investigate her family, so you might need a defense lawyer.”

You didn’t have high hopes that the Trump administration would hold anyone accountable, but surely the next administration could? There’s no statute of limitations for murder, right?

“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “Given President Trump’s past pardons, I’d say it’s quite possible that he’ll pardon the agent. And once he pardons the agent, he’s beyond the reach of federal law for the shooting.”

But there’s state law, right? You’ve seen the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, speak out. Tim Walz, the governor, is furious. Murder is still against the law in Minnesota.

“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is only a small chance that will work. There is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they’re reasonably acting in their official capacity. It’s not absolute immunity like the administration claims, but it’s still a high hurdle for any prosecution to overcome.”

We can still sue the officer, can’t we? Even if the government can’t or won’t prosecute, we’ll still want to hold him liable.

“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is almost no chance that will work. There’s a federal statute that gives you the ability to sue state and local officials when they violate your constitutional rights, but there’s no equivalent law granting the right to sue federal officials for the same reasons.

“In 1971,” the lawyer continues, “the Supreme Court created a path for plaintiffs to sue federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Since then, however, the court has limited the reach of that case, and it is now extremely difficult to sue when the federal government violates your civil rights.”

And there you have it — that’s the challenge any citizen faces when he or she tries to hold the federal government responsible for violating the Constitution. The government is defended by a phalanx of immunities and privileges, buttressed by the president’s unchecked pardon power — a vestige of royal authority that should no longer have any place in our constitutional republic.

Failing the stress test

President Donald Trump is stress-testing American law, and the law is failing the test. The health of the American experiment rests far more on the integrity of any given American president than we realized.

We trusted that presidents would impose accountability on the executive branch. We trusted that presidents wouldn’t abuse their pardon power — or, if they did, then Congress could impeach and convict any offenders. And so we manufactured doctrine after doctrine, year after year, that insulated the executive branch from legal accountability.

It’s hard to overstate how much this web of immunities — combined with the failure of Congress to step up and fulfill its powerful constitutional role — has made the United States vulnerable to authoritarian abuse.

The ancient question: Who will watch the watchers?

In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote some of the most famous words of the American founding. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote. “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

This is a version of the ancient question: Who will watch the watchers?

Madison’s next words were crucial. “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

In the Trump era, those auxiliary precautions have utterly failed. They’ve been undermined to the point where the reverse is now true. Rather than providing additional precautions against the rise of authoritarian rule, American law and precedent seem to presume that angels govern men, and those angels would be free to do even more good if only they possessed a free hand.

The ‘dual state’

And so we’ve slowly but surely created the mechanisms of what the Nazi-era Jewish labor lawyer Ernst Fraenkel called “the dual state.”

Last March, Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor, wrote a prescient (and deeply disturbing) piece for The Atlantic that revived Fraenkel’s analysis for this new American age.

Fraenkel had observed the rise of Nazi rule as a working lawyer and committed social democrat and noted that ordinary Germans enjoyed the benefit of what Huq describes as a “capitalist economy governed by stable laws” even as other parts of the German system changed into an engine of genocide and war.

The two components of the dual state are the normative state — the seemingly normal world that you and I inhabit, where, as Huq writes, the “ordinary legal system of rules, procedures and precedents” applies — and the prerogative state, which is marked (in Fraenkel’s words) by “unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees.”

“The key here,” Huq writes, “is that this prerogative state does not immediately and completely overrun the normative state. Rather, Fraenkel argued, dictatorships create a lawless zone that runs alongside the normative state.”

It’s the continued existence of the normative state that lulls a population to sleep. It makes you discount the warnings of others. “Surely,” you say to yourself, “things aren’t that bad. My life is pretty much what it was.”

While we’re thankfully not yet close to the Nazi reality, you can see the emerging dual state in action in Minneapolis right now. In much of the city, life is routine. People create new businesses, enter into contracts, file litigation and make deals as if life were completely normal and the rule of law exists, untainted by our deep political divide.

But if you interact with ICE, suddenly you risk coming up against the full force of the prerogative state. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the ICE agent’s video of the fatal encounter between Renee Good and ICE is that it’s plain that Good thinks she’s still in the normative state. She has no idea of the peril she’s in.

She seems relaxed. She even seems to have told the agent that she’s not mad at him. In the normative state, your life almost never depends on immediate and unconditional compliance with police commands.

But she wasn’t in the normative state. She had crossed over the border to the prerogative state, and in that state you can be shot dead recklessly, irresponsibly and perhaps even illegally, and no one will pay the price. You might even be rewarded with more than $1 million in donations from friends and allies.

In fact, some of the anger against Good comes from those who think she was the one in the prerogative state, that she was operating recklessly and lawlessly, heedless of any consequence.

Best intentions gone awry

Unlike in Nazi Germany, our emerging prerogative state was often built by well-meaning people operating with the best of intentions.

Think of supremacy clause immunity. For most of our nation’s history, states were far more of an instrument of oppression than the federal government, and limiting the authority of states to prosecute federal officers was indispensable to protecting civil rights.

The limits on lawsuits against public officials are often designed to protect (presumably) good public servants from (presumably) malicious and frivolous lawsuits from angry and ungrateful members of the public. Would good people want to enter public service if they were vulnerable to endless litigation?

As a consequence, for generation after generation, lawmakers and courts have twisted themselves into a logical and moral pretzel, somehow believing that the government will be better if it is less accountable to the public and to the law.

Related Articles

Mary Ellen Klas: The White House push to undermine the midterms is gathering steam

Lisa Jarvis: The Dry January experiment is working

David Blobaum: Admitting unprepared students into college isn’t equity

Ronald Brownstein: This ICE crackdown is making the case for real immigration reform

Mary Ellen Klas: What my Trump-supporting friends won’t say

Yet we don’t apply such reasoning to other vital aspects of public and commercial life. How many people think, “We need banks to have a flourishing economy, so let’s make bankers immune from most lawsuits and nearly impossible to prosecute”?

The opposite is true. The integrity of the banking system is so vital that we need more accountability and transparency, not less.

The wisdom of Madison’s words

And so it is with the government. Trump is proving the wisdom of Madison’s words. Any legal or political system built around trust in the integrity of the president is doomed to failure.

Angels do not govern us — men and women do — and no man or woman should be immune from the rule of law. We’ve taken that idea for granted for far too long, to the point where we’ve abandoned the “auxiliary precautions” the founders knew we needed. Now we are paying the price in blood.

David French writes a column for the New York Times.