Leaked Emails, Gag Orders, and a $1B Rescue: Inside UK’s Secret Afghan Airlift

A covert UK government operation to relocate thousands of Afghan nationals—many of whom supported British forces—was revealed this week following the lifting of a rare court-ordered media gag. 

The secrecy stemmed from a catastrophic 2022 data breach that exposed nearly 19,000 Afghan applicants’ personal details, sparking fears of Taliban retaliation.

Image Source: Tommy Robbinson

The leak, caused by a defense official’s email error, went undetected for 18 months before fragments appeared on Facebook. 

Instead of immediately disclosing the breach, the former Conservative government sought and secured a “super injunction” — a legal gag order so strict that its very existence couldn’t be reported. 

It’s the first such order publicly known to have been granted to the UK government, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability.

With the order now lifted under the new Labour administration, Defense Secretary John Healey admitted to Parliament that the secret relocation programme was created in response to the breach. 

So far, 4,500 Afghans have been quietly brought to Britain under this route, with another 2,400 expected before the programme ends. The total cost is projected to exceed £850 million ($1.1 billion).

An independent review found no direct evidence that the breach increased threats from the Taliban, who reportedly have broader intelligence networks. Still, advocacy groups say the secrecy damaged trust and left many eligible Afghans stranded in danger. 

Critics also argue the current programme scope is insufficient, pointing out that thousands who assisted British missions in Afghanistan remain vulnerable to Taliban reprisal.

The fallout includes renewed scrutiny of the UK’s post-Afghanistan commitments. Legal and humanitarian groups are now demanding compensation for those affected and safeguards for those left behind. 

The scandal also reignites debate over the ethics of super injunctions, especially when used by governments to shield themselves from democratic scrutiny.