Allies Halt Intelligence Sharing Over Legality Concerns Surrounding U.S. Drug Boat Strikes

The following article was originally published in Just Security. Read the original here.

A growing list of U.S. allies—including the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Colombia, Mexico, and several European Union members—have sharply curtailed or conditioned intelligence sharing with Washington following a series of U.S. military boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that have killed at least 83 people. The moves reflect rising alarm that cooperation could expose partner governments to international legal liability.

Allies Fear Complicity in Unlawful Killings

The United Kingdom suspended intelligence support more than a month ago, worried that shared information could be used to unlawfully target suspected drug-trafficking vessels. The Netherlands reportedly scaled back cooperation over concerns the intelligence might facilitate human rights abuses—or, in a surprising twist, be misused in ways that indirectly benefit Russia.

Canada, which operates closely with the U.S. Coast Guard through Operation Caribbe, emphasized that its contributions “are separate and distinct” from the lethal U.S. strikes and ordered that Canadian intelligence not be used for those operations.

Colombia, historically one of Washington’s closest counter-narcotics partners, froze intelligence transfers until the strikes cease. President Gustavo Petro defended the suspension, stating: “The fight against drugs must be subordinated to the human rights of the Caribbean people.”

Mexico has also condemned the operations, urged U.S. compliance with international treaties, and created a new arrangement under which the Mexican Navy will intercept boats near shared coastal areas to prevent further U.S. attacks.

European officials—including France and other E.U. member States—have gone further, publicly describing the strikes as flatly illegal. Asked about European objections, Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded: “Maybe they should be thanking us.”

Historical Echoes: When Allies Pull Back

Intelligence freezes are not unprecedented. Germany and others halted cooperation during the post-9/11 torture and rendition period, and France reduced intelligence ties over its view that the 2003 Iraq invasion was unlawful. The current suspensions follow that pattern: regardless of politics, legal risk is a powerful motivator.

Experts: Strikes Violate International Law

International law specialists are nearly unanimous that the U.S. operations breach international human rights law, which governs the use of lethal force outside armed conflict. Although the administration argues it is engaged in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with drug cartels, experts say this claim fails on two grounds:

1. No Armed Conflict: Drug trafficking does not constitute “armed violence,” and the cartels targeted do not meet the organizational criteria for “organized armed groups.”

2. Human Rights Law Applies: In the absence of armed conflict, only international human rights law applies—specifically, the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. Under this standard, lethal force is lawful only to address an imminent threat when no less-extreme means are available. Maritime drug interdiction does not meet that threshold.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has labeled the strikes “extrajudicial killings.” Analysts note the United States itself has criticized similar drug-war tactics abroad and supported international criminal investigations into such abuses.

Could Partners Be Legally Complicit?

States risk legal responsibility if they knowingly assist another State in committing internationally wrongful acts. Under well-established rules of State responsibility, countries may be complicit if:

• They are bound by the same prohibition on arbitrary killing (all U.S. partners are), and

• Their intelligence “significantly contributes” to the unlawful acts, with knowledge that such use is likely.

After more than 20 lethal strikes—and explicit U.S. declarations that more are coming—experts say no partner can credibly claim ignorance. Even a lower “recklessness” standard under human rights law could expose allies to responsibility.

Given that maritime intelligence often directly enables tracking and targeting, many States now view any continued support as carrying unacceptable legal risk.

Bottom Line: Suspension May Be the Only Lawful Option

Whether driven by legal advice, policy caution, or political calculation, allies’ decisions to halt intelligence sharing reflect one clear conclusion: continuing to provide actionable intelligence that could facilitate extrajudicial killings places third States in jeopardy under international law.

Diplomatic assurances from the United States are unlikely to eliminate that risk, and even partial cooperation could be construed as contribution to arbitrary killings.

For military lawyers and policymakers, the episode underscores the growing importance of international human rights law in cross-border security operations—and the real-world consequences when allies judge U.S. actions to fall outside legal bounds.