Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph.
Several sources told the British newspaper that members of 22 SAS, the British Army’s most elite regiment, have applied for premature release amid anger over investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Syria and Northern Ireland.
The debate is not confined to Britain.
American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute.
SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO ‘REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS’ IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS
“I welcome timely investigations of allegations of violations,” Spencer told Fox News Digital, “but want our leaders to protect all our forces, special or not, from agenda or politicized ‘witch hunts.’”
In Australia, the case of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has become a rallying point for veterans who fear elite soldiers could face years of legal battles after serving in combat.
Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, has denied allegations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Earlier in April, Australian authorities charged him with five counts of murder related to his service in Afghanistan.
To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States.
At least two SAS squadrons have been affected, with several current and former members describing the losses as a “threat to national security.” The paper did not publish the precise number of departures for security reasons.
The resignations come as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government faces criticism over both defense spending and the treatment of veterans.
Britain’s armed forces have faced mounting scrutiny over their size and readiness in recent years. But the U.K. government says it is reversing that trend, reporting that total armed forces strength stood at 182,050 personnel as of Jan. 1, 2026, including 136,960 regular troops, an increase from the previous year.
The government also has pledged what it calls the largest sustained rise in defense spending since the Cold War, with military spending set to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027, backed by an additional £5 billion this financial year and £270 billion in defense investment over the course of the current Parliament. Britain also has said it aims to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next Parliament.
Former and current soldiers said they believe Britain’s legal system has turned against troops who were sent to fight on behalf of the government.
“If a soldier discharges their weapon, they are almost certainly going to get a knock at their door one day,” George Simm, a former regimental sergeant major of 22 SAS, told The Telegraph. “It feels like a betrayal and a break in the trust.”
The controversy centers on ongoing investigations into British special forces operations.
A total of 242 special forces troops, including 120 still serving, are currently involved in legal inquiries costing roughly £1 million per month. Those inquiries involve operations in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and Syria.
Critics say those investigations have created a culture in which soldiers fear that decisions made in combat would later lead to prosecution.
Andrew Fox, a former British Army officer and senior fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, told Fox News Digital the relationship between soldiers and the government has been badly damaged.
“Soldiering contains a pact between the government and those they employ to use lethal force,” Fox said. “Soldiers will take human life within the rules set for them by international law, and in return, their governments should support them.
“This has been inverted, and international law has been weaponized and exploited by our enemies to persecute our soldiers. All too often, governments are coming down on the side of those enemies, not our troops.”
Fox said it was understandable that some soldiers would no longer want to serve.
“Of course, law breaking should be punished, but we are seeing a breakdown in trust between governments and their armed forces when politicians allow troops to be hounded through the courts unjustly,” he said.
Spencer said professional militaries depend on maintaining public trust through a strong internal justice system.
“A professional military holds the trust of its society because it lives by a strict ethical code, its laws, and its rules,” Spencer told Fox News Digital. “That trust is what gives soldiers the unique authority to use lethal force in the worst conditions a human being can face.”
Spencer said allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated quickly and fairly.
“We need investigations that move quickly and fairly on any credible allegation,” he said. “If there’s real evidence of wrongdoing under the law of armed conflict or the rules of engagement, then both the military and society must act on it. That’s how you keep the trust alive.”
PRINCE HARRY FIRES BACK AT TRUMP OVER NATO CRITICISM: ‘I LOST FRIENDS’ IN AFGHANISTAN
At the same time, Spencer warned that some legal campaigns risk crossing the line into what troops perceive as politically motivated “witch hunts.”
“I’ve seen too many human rights lawyers blur the line between basic human rights and the actual law of armed conflict,” Spencer said. “They don’t always understand the application of the use of force in context or the split-second chaos of combat. When that turns into what troops call witch hunts, it eats away at morale and readiness.”
Spencer said governments have a responsibility both to investigate credible accusations and to protect troops from what he called agenda-driven campaigns.
“It’s also the duty of the government to shield the military from agenda-driven witch hunts,” he said. “A rigorous military justice system and honest self-policing are essential for an ethical force. Without them, the profession loses the very trust that lets it do its job.”
Britain’s Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Fox News digital that, “While it is a long-standing policy of successive governments to not comment on U.K. Special Forces, we are immensely proud of all our Armed Forces and their extraordinary contribution to keeping the U.K. safe at home and abroad.”
“We are committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing our Armed Forces reflects the practical realities of military operations — and that those who served with honor are properly protected,” he added, “Where the U.K. undertakes military action, it complies fully with U.K. and international law. We are clear that upholding those standards does not prevent our Armed Forces from conducting effective operations.”
Former British military chiefs warned in an open letter to Starmer in late 2025 that soldiers increasingly believe they must worry about “not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them.”
“Make no mistake,” the retired generals wrote, “our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”
