The UK has stopped sharing some intelligence with the US on suspected drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean following concerns over America’s strikes against the vessels.

The US has reported carrying out 14 strikes since September on boats near the Venezuelan coast.

The death toll from the US attacks in the Pacific and the Caribbean Sea has risen to more than 70, as the US escalates a military build-up in the Caribbean Sea.

Downing Street did not deny reporting by CNN that the UK is withholding intelligence from the US to avoid being complicit in US military strikes it believes may breach international law.

Britain, which controls several territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, has long assisted the US in identifying vessels suspected of smuggling narcotics based on intelligence gathered in its overseas territories in the region.

That information helped the US Coast Guard locate the ships, seize the drugs and detain their crews, CNN cited sources as saying.

But since the Trump administration started carrying out strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in early September, UK officials have become concerned their intelligence may be used to acquire targets for the attacks they believe may be illegal.

The intelligence-sharing pause began more than a month ago, CNN reported, quoting sources as saying Britain shares UN’s human rights chief Volker Turk’s assessment that the strikes amount to extrajudicial killing.

The reports could provide an awkward backdrop for a meeting between Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and her US counterpart Marco Rubio, expected on Wednesday at the G7 foreign ministerial summit in Canada.

A Number 10 spokesman did not deny the move when asked about the pause in intelligence sharing.

Read more:
US likely jammed GPS signals off Venezuela coast, expert tells Sky News
‘We will treat them EXACTLY how we treated al Qaeda’ – US carries out another lethal strike in Caribbean

“We don’t comment on security or intelligence matters,” the official said in response to repeated questions.

“The US is our closest partner on defence, security and intelligence, but in line with a long-standing principle, I’m just not going to comment on intelligence matters.”

He added that “decisions on this are a matter for the US” and that “issues around whether or not anything is against international law is a matter for a competent international court, not for governments to determine”.

A Pentagon official told CNN the department “doesn’t talk about intelligence matters”.

On Monday, US secretary of war Pete Hegseth said on X that the previous day, “two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations”.

He said: “These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the Eastern Pacific.

“Both strikes were conducted in international waters and 3 male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All 6 were killed. No U.S. forces were harmed.”

The United Nations human rights chief has described the US strikes on alleged drug dealers off the coast of South America as “unacceptable” and a violation of international human rights law.

Venezuela says they are illegal, amount to murder and are aggression against the sovereign South American nation.

Hundreds of Russian troops have pushed deeper into eastern Ukrainian cities ‘Mad Max-style’, video released by the Russians appears to show.

The troops were seen rolling through the fog on motorbikes, with some on the roofs of battered cars and vans, apparently into the city of Pokrovsk, as Russia said its forces had also pressed further into Kupiansk on Tuesday.

Ukraine has acknowledged the presence of the troops on its territory, although Reuters news agency says that when the video was shot is yet to be verified.

The fight to gain hold of Pokrovsk, a strategic point on a large road and rail artery in the Donetsk region, has been raging for well over a year, in Vladimir Putin’s push to gain control of the whole of Ukraine’s industrial east.

The Donbas region comprises the neighbouring regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Ukraine’s military said around 300 Russian soldiers were now inside Pokrovsk and that Moscow had intensified efforts to get more troops in over the past few days – using dense fog for cover from drones.

It said Ukrainian forces were fighting Russian groups in the city.

Moscow says taking Pokrovsk, dubbed “the gateway to Donetsk” by Russian media, would give it a platform to push north towards the two largest remaining Ukrainian-controlled cities in the Donetsk region – Kramatorsk and Sloviansk.

Posting on X on Tuesday, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: “The front: our main focus right now is on the Pokrovsk direction and the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Russians are increasing the number and scale of assaults.

“The situation there remains difficult, in part because of weather conditions that favor the attacks. But we continue to destroy the occupier, and I thank every one of our units, every warrior involved in defending Ukraine’s positions.”

Moscow and Kyiv have given different accounts of the battle for Pokrovsk. Moscow has for days said the city is surrounded, while Kyiv has denied Moscow controls the city and said on Monday that it was still able to supply neighbouring Myrnohrad.

Moscow has been threatening Pokrovsk for more than a year, attempting to surround it and threaten supply lines, rather than use the deadly frontal assaults it used to take the city of Bakhmut in 2023.

Russian war bloggers published a video on Tuesday showing what they said were Russian forces entering Pokrovsk along a road enveloped in fog, in what some Telegram users said looked like scenes from the Mad Max action film series, many of which are set in a post-apocalyptic landscape.

The date of the footage has not been independently verified.

Read more:
At least 12 killed after suicide bombing in Pakistan
Thailand-Cambodia peace deal in trouble

Russia said it had taken 256 buildings and that Moscow’s forces were actively advancing to the northwest and east of Pokrovsk as well as around the railway station.

Russia has executed a pincer movement around the city and was close to closing it, open-source battlefield maps from both sides show, though Kyiv has counter-attacked around the town of Dobropillia.

Ukraine’s top military commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, said in an interview with the New York Post that Russia was concentrating some 150,000 troops in a push to capture Pokrovsk, with mechanised groups and marine brigades forming part of this drive.

Russia said its forces had taken full control of the eastern part of Kupiansk in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region. A Russian commander, who gave his call sign as Hunter, said his troops had taken control of an oil depot on the eastern edge of Kupiansk.

In a video statement issued by Russia’s defence ministry, he said his forces had also taken control of a series of train stops along the railway to Kupiansk Vuzlovyi, a settlement around 6km (4 miles) south of the centre of Kupiansk itself.

Russia also said its troops had taken control of the settlement of Novouspenivske in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region.

Ukraine withdrew from some villages, including Novouspenivske, due to intense attacks involving more than 400 artillery strikes per day, RBC-Ukraine news agency cited a military spokesperson as saying.

Russia’s military says it now controls more than 19% of Ukraine, or some 116,000 square km (44,800 square miles), up from 18% nearly three years ago, according to Ukrainian maps tracking frontline changes.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has defended the BBC as a crisis initiated by an edit of a Donald Trump speech engulfs the corporation.

The organisation apologised on Monday after two of its top figures, including director-general Tim Davie, resigned amid concerns about impartiality – notably the editing of a Panorama documentary from October 2024.

It aired the week before the US presidential election and showed an edited speech made by Mr Trump before the 2021 Capitol riot, in which he appeared to tell supporters he was going to walk there with them to “fight like hell”.

Ms Nandy has defended the BBC, saying “some in the House” have suggested the BBC is institutionally biased, but that she disagrees as the BBC is a “light on the hill for people here and across the world”.

“All of us in this House should value it, uphold it and fiercely defend it,” she added.

The culture secretary said that she has been in “regular contact” with BBC chair Samir Shah, ensuring that where its standards were not met, “firm, swift and transparent action follows”.

“I welcome the steps that have already been set out and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues,” she added, saying she agreed with Mr Shah that the national broadcaster has a responsibility to “uphold the highest standards”.

Ms Nandy said a review of the BBC’s Royal Charter will begin “imminently” and a public consultation will be launched, with more details in the “coming weeks”.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn, and a letter dated 9 November from Florida lawyer Alejandro Brito outlines three demands upon the organisation to avoid being sued, with a deadline of 10pm UK time on Friday to respond.

He demanded that the BBC issue a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary, apologise immediately, and “appropriately compensate” Mr Trump.

Shadow culture secretary Nigel Huddleston has demanded an apology from the BBC to Trump and to the British public.

He told the House of Commons on Tuesday that the corporation is “in a sorry mess… of its own making” and “needs saving from itself”.

Mr Huddleston stressed that his party wants the BBC to succeed and praises its successes, but emphasised that this “requires institutional change and far more than a few moves at the top”.

The problems of the corporation relate to its failure to honour its charter obligation to impartiality, he said.

In an all-staff call on Tuesday morning, the outgoing BBC director-general Mr Davie said the corporation had “made some mistakes that have cost us” but added he was “proud” and that the organisation needed to “fight” for its journalism.

He also admitted: “I think we did make a mistake, and there was an editorial breach, and I think some responsibility had to be taken.”

Mr Davie, who has worked for the BBC for 20 years and been in charge for the past five, is not stepping down immediately.

He said in his departure note to staff that he is “working through exact timings with the board to allow for an orderly transition to a successor over the coming months”.

There are several potential candidates who could replace him and take on the highest-profile role in British broadcasting, which effectively serves as both the corporation’s chief executive and its editor-in-chief across television, radio and online.

In a Q&A with Mr Davie after the all-staff call, staff were frustrated by having their questions vetted, Sky News arts and entertainment correspondent Katie Spencer reports.

Some of the questions were about the controversial appointment of Sir Robbie Gibb, the former Tory director of communications for prime minister Theresa May, to the BBC board.

But when these questions were getting through the vetting process, staff tried to ask questions in the reply boxes, which were public.

The anonymous comments included questions like “How can we claim to be unbiased if Gibb is on the board?” and “Why is Robbie Gibb still on the board?”.

Read more:
The man behind the leaked BBC memo
Trump’s legal threat letter in full
Who is Sir Robbie Gibb and why are there calls to get him off BBC board?

“I find Robbie Gibb’s continued presence at the BBC to be incredibly demoralising. It feels as if he is fighting against and undermining the work we’re trying to do,” another comment read.

The leaders of the Lib Dems and SNP have both called for Sir Robbie’s removal.

But Ms Nandy told the Commons that the government is “unable” to remove Sir Robbie, as “the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member”.