UK pauses intelligence-sharing with US on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean

A rare fracture between close allies

The UK has suspended the sharing of intelligence with the United States about suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean, following concerns that such information could be used to target and sink boats as part of the Trump administration’s escalating anti-narcotics operations.

Officials familiar with the situation described the pause as a rare rupture between two of the world’s closest military allies, reflecting Britain’s view that the U.S. campaign of lethal strikes on small boats suspected of drug trafficking may violate international law.

The intelligence freeze reportedly took effect in September, shortly after the U.S. began a series of what it called “kinetic operations” against alleged narco-trafficking vessels.

A UK government spokesperson declined to confirm the reports, stating only:

“It is our longstanding policy not to comment on intelligence matters.”

U.S. ‘narco-terror’ campaign under scrutiny

According to U.S. military sources, at least 19 attacks have taken place in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing an estimated 76 people aboard small boats the administration claims were involved in drug smuggling.

President Donald Trump has publicly defended the campaign, arguing that drug smugglers can be treated as “combatants in an armed conflict” with the United States — a claim widely rejected by international-law experts.

U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that six “male narco-terrorists” were killed when U.S. forces bombed two boats in the region, posting an image of the explosion on social media.

Legal scholars and humanitarian observers say such attacks amount to extrajudicial killings and could breach both international humanitarian law and U.S. domestic law.

UK legal concerns and operational limits

Under UK law and intelligence policy, Britain cannot share information with an ally if there is a serious risk it could contribute to unlawful killing. The suspension indicates the UK believes U.S. operations may not meet legal standards of distinction, proportionality, and necessity under international law.

The situation is especially sensitive given Britain’s sovereign responsibilities in several Caribbean territories, including the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, where intelligence cooperation with the U.S. typically focuses on drug interdiction and maritime security.

A British defence official told The Guardian the pause reflects “deep unease about the use of intelligence for lethal outcomes not sanctioned under international law.”

Echoes of earlier disputes

This is not the first time intelligence cooperation has been tested under the Trump administration.

• Earlier this year, U.S. B-2 bombers targeted Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear site without UK support, despite speculation that they would use the joint UK-U.S. base at Diego Garcia.
   
• In May, the New York Times reported that FBI Director Kash Patel promised his MI5 counterpart to retain a U.S. surveillance officer in London, only for the post to be axed days later — a move that reportedly left MI5 “incredulous.”
   

Such episodes have raised questions about trust and transparency between U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies during Trump’s second term.

U.S. buildup and Venezuelan tensions

The strikes in the Caribbean have coincided with a U.S. naval buildup, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s largest aircraft carrier, and its strike group.

The show of force comes amid rising tensions with Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, raising fears of a wider confrontation that could draw in British personnel.

By long-standing arrangement, a Royal Navy officer — currently Lt Cdr Owen Long from Lincolnshire — is permanently deployed as navigator aboard the USS Winston Churchill, a U.S. destroyer that flies both nations’ ensigns during ceremonial duties.

A Royal Navy spokesperson confirmed that British officers routinely serve on exchange with U.S. forces, adding:

“Armed forces personnel regularly serve on exchange programmes with our key military partners around the world.”

However, British naval sources said a legal review would be required before any UK personnel participated in U.S.-led “kinetic operations”, to ensure compliance with British law and rules of engagement.

Calls for restraint and legal accountability

Criticism of the U.S. actions has intensified. Congressman Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, accused Trump of “ordering the U.S. Navy to conduct extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and East Pacific” and warned the U.S. was “inciting a potential illegal war with Venezuela.”

“In doing so, Trump is subjecting U.S. service members to serious criminal liability,” Castro said.
 “His actions now seem to put allied service members, including British sailors, at risk of operating outside of British and international law.”

Oona Hathaway, president-elect of the American Society of International Law, said:

“If they refuse, they disobey orders. If they do it, they are violating international and domestic law.”

Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, added that there was “no serious argument” that those on the targeted boats were anything other than civilians, warning that the UK could face legal exposure if it provided intelligence or matériel used in the strikes.

“Countries supporting these operations risk complicity in potential war crimes,” Finucane said.

Legal commentary (for Parachute Law readers)

From a public international law perspective, the UK’s suspension of intelligence-sharing appears consistent with its obligations under:

• Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, which prohibits aiding another state in committing an internationally wrongful act;
   
• Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, which obliges states to “ensure respect” for humanitarian law even by allies; and
   
• The UK Consolidated Guidance on Intelligence Sharing, which forbids sharing information likely to lead to unlawful killing.
   

For legal practitioners, the case highlights how shared intelligence and embedded personnel can create joint liability under international law, especially if UK-sourced data contributes to extrajudicial actions.

The episode may also force a reassessment of UK-U.S. intelligence protocols, similar to those adopted after the 2011 Libya rendition scandal, where intelligence assistance was linked to human-rights abuses.

What happens next

• Review underway: British and U.S. officials are reportedly discussing revised operational guidelines to ensure any resumed information exchange complies with international law.
   
• Legal oversight: The UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) is expected to request a briefing on the suspension and potential legal exposure.
   
• Risk mitigation: UK forces embedded in U.S. naval commands may receive updated rules of engagement clarifying limits on participation in lethal anti-narcotics operations.

Conclusion

The pause in intelligence-sharing underscores a deepening unease between the UK and U.S. over the legal and moral boundaries of counter-narcotics warfare. While both nations remain allies, Britain’s decision sends a clear signal: partnership does not mean blind endorsement of methods that risk breaching international law.

The coming months will test whether Washington and London can rebuild trust — or whether this marks the start of a longer realignment in how the UK approaches intelligence cooperation under an increasingly unilateral U.S. administration.

For media and international law advice, contact Parachute Law’s public law and defence compliance team.
 We advise clients on intelligence-sharing, international humanitarian law, and the legal limits of allied cooperation in overseas operations.

Contact Us Now

Related Articles:

The Common Mistake People Make When Divorcing – and How to Avoid It

Interim Maintenance: Financial Support During Your Divorce

Divorce and Jurisdiction: Why the Country You Divorce In Can Shape Your Financial Future