UK Suspends Intelligence Sharing with U.S. Over Caribbean Drug Boat Strikes

The United Kingdom has suspended the sharing of intelligence with the United States regarding suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea, following concerns that the data might have been used to conduct lethal military strikes that British officials consider unlawful under international law.

According to multiple reports, including CNN and Reuters, the decision was made after a series of U.S. military operations launched in September 2025 targeted small vessels allegedly used by drug traffickers. The strikes, carried out in both the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, have reportedly killed at least 76 people.

End of a Long-Standing Partnership

For years, the U.K. has played a central role in the joint maritime counter-narcotics mission with the United States, using its network of territories in the Caribbean — including the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Montserrat — to provide surveillance and signals intelligence. British data has helped the U.S. Coast Guard intercept vessels suspected of carrying narcotics, allowing them to be stopped, boarded, and searched lawfully at sea.

However, British officials grew uneasy when the U.S. began using air- and ship-launched missiles to destroy suspected drug-trafficking boats outright, rather than boarding them. Intelligence sources told CNN that U.K. defence and legal advisers were alarmed that these attacks could constitute “extrajudicial killings” — the unlawful killing of suspects without trial or due process.

As a result, the U.K. has halted the transmission of operational intelligence about suspected drug routes, ship positions, and communication intercepts to the U.S. until it receives guarantees that the information will not be used to target vessels for destruction.

British Concerns Over Legality

According to senior Whitehall officials, the British government believes that the U.S. strikes may violate international maritime and humanitarian law, as the targets were civilian vessels operating in international waters.

Legal experts in London have emphasized that even if the boats were carrying narcotics, international law does not authorize the use of lethal force against them unless there is a clear and imminent threat to life. Instead, such vessels are to be intercepted, boarded, and detained under law-enforcement protocols governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

A senior British official, quoted anonymously, told The Guardian:

“We cannot be complicit in operations that do not meet international legal standards. The United Kingdom’s cooperation is strictly limited to law-enforcement actions, not acts of war.”

U.S. Response and Justification

American officials, however, have defended the strikes as part of a broader anti-narcotics campaign, arguing that certain cartels and trafficking groups are now classified as transnational terrorist organizations due to their links with armed militias and paramilitary entities in South America.

Pentagon spokespersons have claimed that some of the targeted vessels were “heavily armed and resistant to interdiction,” justifying the use of military force. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated last month that the campaign’s goal is to “deter cartel operations by any means necessary.”

Nevertheless, Washington has yet to provide full public evidence supporting these claims. Human-rights organizations and international law scholars have described the strikes as a dangerous escalation that blurs the line between law enforcement and warfare.

Impact on Intelligence Cooperation

The suspension of intelligence sharing marks a rare fracture in the U.S.–U.K. “special relationship,” particularly in the field of counter-narcotics and maritime security, where the two nations have traditionally worked in close coordination.

Without access to British surveillance and communications data — particularly from its Caribbean territories and Royal Navy maritime patrol aircraft — the U.S. could face reduced situational awareness in tracking drug movements across the region.

Analysts say the decision may also encourage other Western partners to review their own roles in U.S. operations. Some European intelligence services reportedly share similar unease about how American military forces have interpreted “counter-narcotics” missions as a license for pre-emptive strikes.

Wider Diplomatic Repercussions

The issue is expected to surface at the upcoming G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Rome, where British diplomats will reportedly raise concerns over the legality and transparency of recent U.S. maritime actions. Several Latin American governments, including Colombia and Mexico, have also requested clarifications from Washington after civilian fatalities were reported in waters near Venezuela and Ecuador.

In a statement to Reuters, a senior U.K. foreign policy adviser said:

“Britain will continue to support counter-narcotics operations worldwide, but only in accordance with international law. Any operations involving the use of lethal force must be proportionate, legally justified, and fully accountable.”

A Turning Point in the War on Drugs

The diplomatic fallout underscores growing disagreement among allies about how far the “war on drugs” can go under international law. For decades, cooperation between Western nations has focused on interdiction, arrest, and judicial prosecution. The shift toward lethal action at sea — where suspects are killed rather than detained — represents a new and controversial phase.

Legal observers warn that such operations risk undermining global counter-narcotics cooperation, as allies may withdraw intelligence or impose stricter oversight on shared data. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also requested clarification from Washington about the legal framework governing these strikes.