US military forces in the UK
Democracy demands transparency
From END Info 47 | April 2026 DOWNLOAD PDF
Tom Unterrainer
The United States is making extensive use of UK bases in its war of aggression against Iran. This is despite the fact that Prime Minister Starmer has repeatedly asserted that the UK is not part of Trump and Netanyahu’s war and repeatedly implied that the British government does not believe in “regime change from the air”. Further, it seems rational to assume that legal advice received by the British government indicates that Trump and Netanyahu’s war is ‘illegal’ under international law. So how is it that the Fairford air base and - we assume - other UK bases are being so extensively used? A partial answer to this question comes in the claim that UK bases are being used for ‘defensive’ purposes following Iranian attacks on UK and allied interests in the region. As Drone Wars point out in their recent briefing (see ‘Fairford air base and US strikes on Iran’), such claims do not clearly cover every US operation. The UK government has questions to answer and a number of Members of Parliament - along with campaign groups and journalists - have been putting the questions. Unfortunately, clear answers are not forthcoming. Why is that?
The House of Commons Library has done a great service in publishing a research briefing, ‘US military forces in the UK: Legal agreements’, on 2 March 2026. The timing of this document cannot be a coincidence and it is worth looking at it section-by-section not because it provides clear answers but as a guide to the total lack of transparency - the total secrecy - at the heart of arrangements between the US and UK.
Section 1, subsection 1.1 of the briefing tells us that the “Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) regulate the presence of military forces in another country, and the extent to which those foreign military personnel are expect from local jurisdiction.” Subsection 1.2 tells us that in “1951 NATO agreed a Status of Forces Agreement to govern hosting arrangements between the alliance’s member states.” Section 1.3 tells us that the “Visiting Forces Act (VFA) 1952 incorporates the NATO SOFA into UK law” and then lists further related Acts. So far, so informative: the texts of the NATO SOFA and VFA are freely available online and look to be fairly comprehensive. However, the actual agreements regulating US forces specifically are listed in Section 2 and it is here that clarity and transparency begin to diminish.
Section 2 opens by noting the permanent presence of US forces in the UK since the end of the Second World War and quotes from the ‘Churchill-Truman Communiqué of 1952’ where a hint of vagueness is introduced:
Under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by HM Government and the US Government in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
We are told that the “legal status of the [US Visiting Forces] and its personnel in the UK is established by” the previously mentioned Acts “along with supplemental bilateral acts between the two countries, some of which are classified” [emphasis added].
Subsection 2.4, ‘Permissions to use UK bases for US military operations’, claims that any “operational use of UK bases by US forces is subject to a joint decision by the UK and US governments. This includes the use of UK bases for combat operations by US Air Force aircraft.” Further:
In January 2026, the government confirmed that any request to use UK bases for military action overseas is considered on a case-by-case basis and includes ‘appropriate consideration of the legal basis for any proposed activity’.
In 2003, then-Secretary of State of Defence Geoff Hoon provided the following written answer to pertinent questions about US planes at Fairford:
The use of United Kingdom bases, including RAF Fairford, by the [USVF] is set out in a number of confidential arrangements ... I am withholding the release of these documents ...”
Then, as now, the actual arrangements between the US and UK remain a secret that not even parliamentary probing can reveal. Why is that? In the context of the US war of aggression against Iran, clearly judged unlawful, how can we be clear that the UK government isn’t actually complicit in illegality? Only full transparency on the nature of all agreements between the US and UK can clear up this situation. Democracy demands transparency and in its absence, who is to say that the UK is not complicit in further crimes?