The UK’s defence secretary has acknowledged that he is “unable to say for sure” whether the serious data breach involving Afghan allies of British forces led to any deaths.

However, John Healey downplayed the threat level, suggesting it was “highly unlikely” that inclusion on the list would now place individuals at greater risk from Taliban forces.

The incident in question stems from a mistaken disclosure in February 2022, when a UK official leaked sensitive information about nearly 19,000 Afghans who had submitted applications to relocate to the UK after the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan. Authorities only became fully aware of the breach in August 2023, when the data began circulating on social media.

A legal order that had previously blocked any reporting on the situation was lifted in court this week, allowing details to be publicly disclosed.

In response to the leak, a programme called the Afghanistan Response Route was launched in April 2024 to assist affected individuals. So far, this initiative has brought around 4,500 Afghans to the UK. Though the scheme is now closed, it is expected to have supported a total of 6,900 people by its conclusion. The financial outlay has already reached £400 million and could ultimately total £850 million.

Despite these efforts, officials say approximately 600 soldiers named in the leaked records and about 1,800 of their relatives remain within Afghanistan.

The breach and subsequent relocations were kept out of the public eye until Tuesday’s court ruling removed reporting restrictions.

Healey commented that this change enables “proper press reporting and scrutiny”.

“You cannot have democracy with super-injunctions in place,” he said.

Sir Ben Wallace, who served as defence secretary under the previous government, revealed that an initial four-month gag order had been sought when the breach came to light. A judge later escalated that into a full super-injunction.

He stated that his focus at the time was to “protect those people who could have been or were exposed”.

When the High Court lifted the injunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain pointed to findings from the Ministry of Defence’s internal review. The review concluded that the Taliban “likely already possess the key information in the dataset” and that acknowledging the breach publicly was unlikely to “substantially” increase danger for those named.

Authorities have since reached out to the individuals affected, advising them via email to “exercise caution” and take steps such as securing their digital presence and avoiding unknown contact.

During his remarks in Parliament, Healey confirmed that the individual responsible for the leak had been reassigned, adding a “sincere apology” for the incident.

There has been no official statement from the prime minister’s office regarding whether the employee involved has faced disciplinary measures.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also issued an apology on behalf of her party.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former party leader, criticized the decision to withhold information from lawmakers for such an extended period.

“Parliament cannot be ignored for that length of time, we owe a duty to the public to at least have examined this,” he said.

A young woman whose father had worked as a translator for British troops told reporters her family was gripped with fear after learning their details were exposed.

“No one knows where the data has been sent to – it could be sent to the Taliban, they could have their hands on it,” she said.

She also expressed concern for her grandmother, who remains in Afghanistan and is “completely vulnerable”.

The breach came in the wake of the 2021 pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The exposed data related to applicants of the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), a programme designed to move individuals at risk of Taliban retaliation to safety in the UK.

The broader evacuation, which brought 36,000 Afghans to British soil, has faced intense scrutiny. A 2022 review by a parliamentary committee described the effort as a “disaster” and “betrayal”.

In a move expected to reshape trade dynamics between the two nations, President Donald Trump and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto announced a major reduction in tariffs on Indonesian imports from 32% down to 19%.

Trump stated that this change was secured in return for “full access” for American firms.

In a post shared via social media, Prabowo described the development as marking a “new era of mutual benefit” with Washington. Speaking to journalists in Jakarta, he added that Trump was “quite a tough negotiator”.

This breakthrough follows a series of intense negotiations prompted by a wave of new tariffs introduced by the U.S. administration earlier this year. Those actions triggered a number of talks with trade allies worldwide.

Although Trump had previously paused some of his earlier tariff strategies, he resumed his aggressive stance this month sending formal notices to numerous countries warning of steep duties starting August 1.

Nations named in those warnings included many of America’s largest economic partners such as Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the European Union.

Indonesia, too, received a formal letter last week notifying them of an intended 32% tariff, which reportedly surprised officials who had believed a deal was nearing completion.

On Tuesday, Trump shared that the reduced rate followed a direct phone conversation with President Prabowo.

He added that the deal also included a commitment from Indonesia to ease tariffs on U.S. goods particularly those related to agriculture and manufacturing which Washington had long criticized as being too high.

“They are going to pay 19% and we are going to pay nothing… we will have full access into Indonesia,” he said.

The agreement also includes significant purchases: Indonesia has agreed to acquire $15 billion worth of U.S. energy, $4.5 billion in American farm goods, and 50 aircraft from Boeing, Trump later confirmed on his social media account.

These commitments, however, appear more modest than projections made earlier in the month by trade insiders close to the matter.

Prabowo, when speaking to reporters, did not detail the numbers but referred broadly to the themes of the deal outlined by Trump.

“We need planes, and they want to sell,” Prabowo told reporters. “Boeing is quite good, and we’ll also continue to work with Airbus.”

“We also need things. For example, we still import fuel, gas, wheat, soybeans and so on. And we managed to find common ground,” he added.

While he didn’t explicitly confirm that American products would enter Indonesia tariff-free, he noted, “we have negotiated everything”.

“We also have our own position. This is our offer, and we simply can’t afford to buy more. But the key thing for me is that our workers are safe,” he said.

Indonesia is one of the United States’ top 25 trade partners. In the past year, it exported about $28 billion worth of goods to the U.S., including items such as footwear, palm oil, and apparel.

One U.S.-based economist remarked that the benefits to Indonesia appeared to lean more toward political gains than economic ones.

“Certainly, [the US does] have some major imports categories from Indonesia – electronics, apparel, footwear, palm oil products which are used in cosmetics,” he said.

“Relative to total trade, the US is a significant importer from Indonesia, though not as great as some of its Asian trading partners.”

Beyond Indonesia, similar deals have been reached with just a few other countries so far including Vietnam, China, and the UK. In each case, the agreements have left many tariffs unchanged and lacked clear resolutions on several trade issues.

A former senior economic official familiar with White House trade strategy said he expects additional trade deals to be announced soon. He also noted that some governments now appear more willing to accept compromises they would have rejected in the past.

He referenced remarks made recently by Canada’s prime minister, suggesting the possibility of settling for tariff levels previously deemed unacceptable.

“The tone is changing a lot,” he said, noting a shift in how countries are approaching negotiations.

“For governments, I think it’s best to be at the negotiating table rather than to walk away,” he added.