Royal Navy personnel were seconded to US Navy vessels in the Caribbean during the same period that American forces began a controversial campaign of lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The admission, obtained by Action on Armed Violence through Freedom of Information legislation, raises questions about Britain’s proximity to operations that the UN and human-rights organisations have described as extrajudicial killings.
AOAV asked whether British personnel served aboard US vessels between 1 September and 22 December 2025.
The first US strike against the suspected boats took place on 2 September, killing 11 people aboard a boat alleged by Washington to be carrying drugs.
By 15 December, Human Rights Watch had recorded 26 reported strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing 95 people. It said the US had not identified those killed or demonstrated that they posed an imminent threat. HRW argued that drug interdiction is a law-enforcement matter rather than an armed conflict, meaning deliberate lethal force is lawful only when strictly necessary to protect life. It has described the campaign as one of “extrajudicial killings”.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) reached a similar conclusion. In October, Volker Türk said the strikes had violated international humanitarian law. That they had killed more than 60 people “in circumstances that find no justification in international law” and UNHCHR called on Washington to halt what he termed the extrajudicial killing of people aboard the boats.
The British military connection is particularly sensitive because in November 2025 it was reported that the UK had stopped sharing some intelligence on suspected trafficking vessels with Washington, amid fears that the information could be used to select targets for strikes Britain considered unlawful.
Previously, British intelligence had reportedly helped US authorities locate boats so that crews could be intercepted, arrested and prosecuted.
Concerns reached Parliament in December. Lord Berkeley asked whether UK personnel serving on American ships risked being implicated in criminal proceedings and whether they should be withdrawn.
Lord Bekeley said: “There are often quite a lot of UK personnel on American ships, and they could be implicated in criminal charges. Has my noble friend considered removing UK military personnel from these ships until things calm down?”
Lord Hanson of Flint, speaking for the government, replied that “the United Kingdom was not involved” in the strikes.
Another peer, Lord Bruce of Bennachie m pointed to British safeguards intended to prevent intelligence being shared where it might lead to extrajudicial killing.
The new FOI disclosure does not establish British involvement in any attack. But the MOD has refused to reveal how many Royal Navy personnel were deployed, their ranks and roles, or the US vessels aboard which they served, citing defence and international-relations exemptions.
That secrecy makes it impossible to determine whether British personnel were serving aboard ships supporting the lethal campaign at the time the strikes were taking place.
US Navy records confirm that major naval assets, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, entered the Caribbean in November to support Operation Southern Spear, Washington’s campaign against what it calls “narco-terrorism”.
The question, therefore, is not whether British sailors were in the Caribbean. The MOD has confirmed that they were.
It is what role, if any, they played in an American operation that Britain’s own allies, parliamentarians and leading human-rights bodies have questioned on fundamental legal grounds.
Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence, said of the revelation: “The MOD has confirmed that British personnel were serving on US Navy vessels during a period in which those forces were carrying out lethal strikes that senior UN officials and human-rights organisations have described as unlawful.”
“That does not mean British personnel were intrinsically involved in those attacks. But it does mean there are legitimate questions about which ships they were serving on, what roles they performed and whether they had any connection to the operations. Those questions should be answered.”
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate