Britain has suspended the sharing of intelligence with the US on suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean amid concerns information supplied may be used to engage in lethal military strikes by American forces.
Such a decision – a rare rupture between the normally close military allies – would indicate that the UK does not believe the Trump administration’s controversial practice of sinking boats allegedly used by drug traffickers is legal.
The UK, which retains oversight on several island territories in the Caribbean, has long shared intelligence with the US about the movements of suspect vessels travelling from Latin America, so they can be seized by the US Coast Guard.
But, CNN, which first reported the story, said that British intelligence-sharing relating to possible drug-related shipping had been paused shortly after the US began a campaign of lethal strikes in September.
Responding to the CNN report, a UK government spokesperson said: “It is our longstanding policy to not comment on intelligence matters.”
An estimated 76 people have been killed by the US in 19 attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that were allegedly involved in narco-trafficking. The Trump administration claims drug smugglers can be killed legally because they are combatants in an “armed conflict” with the US.
However, intelligence or other military assistance would not be given to an ally, including the US, if the UK had its own legal concerns about how information supplied might ultimately be used in operations.
Similar questions were raised before the raid by US B-2 bombers on Iran’s underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordow in June, when it was believed the mission was going to be launched from the UK military base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In the end, the bombers flew from Missouri.
Another sign of strains in the US-UK intelligence relationship under the Trump administration was reported by the New York Times, which said that Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, had personally promised his MI5 counterpart, Ken McCallum, he would protect the job of a London-based US surveillance officer while visiting the UK in May.
The position was axed shortly afterwards, forcing the FBI agent to return to the US. MI5 officials “were incredulous”, the newspaper reported, though British sources declined to comment. The FBI also did not comment on the report.
The attacks have coincided with a US military buildup, including the arrival in the Caribbean of the US navy’s largest warship, the USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier, and its supporting strike group amid rising tensions with the Venezuelan regime of Nicholás Maduro.
That deployment raises a further dilemma for the UK, as a senior Royal Navy officer is by tradition permanently deployed on a US destroyer, the USS Winston Churchill, which is part of the strike group.
Lt Cdr Owen Long, from Boston in Lincolnshire, is serving as navigator on the Churchill.
In September, the Royal Navy officer navigated the guided-missile destroyer, which flies the Royal Navy’s White Ensign alongside the US flag on ceremonial occasions, into Portsmouth for an official visit to the UK.
Joaquin Castro, a Democratic congressman from Texas, said: “President Trump is ordering the US navy to conduct extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and East Pacific, and inciting a potential illegal war with Venezuela. In doing so, Trump is subjecting US service members to serious criminal liability.
“His actions now seem to put allied service members, including British sailors, at risk of operating outside of British and international law,” Castro said. “The United Kingdom has a choice on whether they want to participate in this illegal war President Trump is pulling them into. I sincerely hope they choose to not participate.”
Asked about Lt Cdr Long’s deployment, a Royal Navy spokesperson said: “Armed forces personnel regularly serve on exchange programmes with our key military partners around the world.”
British naval sources said that a legal review would normally be conducted before a British sailor was involved in any US-led “kinetic” operations.
On Sunday, the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced the bombing of two boats. He said that six “male narco-terrorists” were killed in the strikes on boats that were “operated by designated terrorist organizations”.
Several legal analysts have said that the attacks on boats were extrajudicial killings and any unprovoked attack on Venezuela would be a further clear violation of international law.
Oona Hathaway, the president-elect of the American Society of International Law and a former Pentagon legal adviser, said criminal liability may arise for those involved in the attacks. “I know they know what they are doing is wrong. If they refuse, they disobey orders. If they do it, they are violating international law and domestic law,” she said.
“The extent that the UK is involved in some way, with its personnel or, if it’s providing munitions or components of weapons that are being used as operations, that could have legal implications for the United Kingdom,” said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US programme at the International Crisis Group.
“There’s no serious argument there is anyone other than civilians on these small boats, despite what the US government says,” he added. “So that should be an obvious concern if the UK or other countries who could in some ways be supporting these lethal strikes.”
“Those countries would also need to think about supporting a potential act of aggression against Venezuela. A US invasion or even airstrikes on the country would be a clear violation of international law.”
