If Tulsi Gabbard’s directive is maintained, the United States could find itself in a world where its most trusted partners primarily discuss security in venues that do not include America.
The White House did not acknowledge the exact exchange that President Donald Trump had in his high-level meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska earlier this month.
While it’s not surprising that the details were not released to the public at this point, some of America’s closest allies also remain largely in the dark—and have expressed frustrations about the lack of communication to the Trump administration.
According to a recent report from CBS News, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, “issued a directive weeks ago to the US intelligence community” that its information regarding the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine no longer be shared with the so-called “Five Eyes”—the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—which have historically cooperated closely on intelligence matters. Information related to the peace talks was classified as “NOFORN,” meaning that it could not be shared with any foreign nationals, friend or foe.
“This is a siren, not a memo,” warned geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of threat assessment firm Scarab Rising. “Seal Russia–Ukraine diplomacy inside a NOFORN box, and you do not just trim a distribution list. You redraw the security map. Allies hear a slammed door. Rivals hear an invitation.”
Tsukerman further suggested the decision to wall off information about Russia–Ukraine negotiations from the Five Eyes would not be perceived as a bureaucratic adjustment, but as an insult.
“The Five Eyes alliance was built on the premise that the English-speaking democracies share more with each other than with anyone else,” she warned. “When Washington suddenly redraws the lines and stamps the most critical issue in European security ‘NOFORN,’ it signals to friends and adversaries alike that America no longer treats even its closest allies as part of the inner circle.”
America’s Intelligence-Sharing Apparatus Is Falling Apart
The Five Eyes, regarded as one of the world’s most successful intelligence partnerships, has seen its share of setbacks in recent years. In 2020, cracks appeared in its foundation when the British government opted to proceed with plans to have the Chinese-based tech giant Huawei build out its 5G network—drawing bipartisan complaints from Washington. A year later, New Zealand refused to condemn Beijing for its de facto military takeover of the contested South China Sea or its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, seeking to maintain its bilateral relations with China.
The Edward Snowden leaks in 2013 also exposed extensive surveillance activities carried out by the Five Eyes, which created internal friction within the alliance.
This latest snub is not likely to repair past damage.
“Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have long operated under the assumption that their intelligence insights buy them a seat at the grown-up table. They hand over sensitive intercepts, deploy resources that Washington cannot, and open up access points around the globe. In return, they expect to be part of the full conversation when great power conflicts are at stake,” said Tsukerman. Gabbard’s directive would appear to violate that expectation.
Moreover, it could be seen as telling London, Canberra, Ottawa, and Wellington that their trust is conditional, or that their value is limited—and is insufficient to guarantee access to American information.
“Adversaries, meanwhile, are watching gleefully,” said Tsukerman. “Moscow sees an opening to paint America as an unreliable partner, one that hoards secrets even from those who share its worldview and security burdens. “
Without America, the Other Four “Eyes” Will Go Elsewhere
It is also important to note that this intelligence sharing is not just about exchanging data, but also about building a common strategic picture. The United States has excluded allies from the picture—with consequences that are difficult to foresee.
“If allies are cut out of the loop on Russia–Ukraine talks, they begin to form their own assessments without Washington’s input,” said Tsukerman. “Once alternative networks and channels form, they will not dissolve quickly.”
As a result, the United States could find itself in a world where its most trusted partners primarily discuss European security in venues that do not include America—a historic reversal of roles, with the United States outside peering in.
Of course, the Five Eyes have never been completely transparent with each other, and their national interests with respect to information will occasionally diverge. However, the timing of Gabbard’s announcement is particularly inauspicious, as the West’s negotiating power vis-a-vis Russia will likely be weakened if Western nations are hostile towards each other over intelligence issues.
America First or America Alone?
Supporters of the Trump administration argue that many Western nations—including other members of the Five Eyes—have been free riders on American security guarantees for too long. However, that does not explain why it would be necessary to keep the intelligence to a minimum—especially as President Trump was already set to meet with multiple world leaders.
“The broader danger is self-isolation,” said Tsukerman. “Cutting out the Five Eyes does not make America smarter. It makes America smaller. The alliance works because each partner sees a different slice of the world and feeds that slice into a shared picture.”
Indeed, America has derived many intelligence benefits from Five Eyes cooperation over the past decades—in particular the United Kingdom’s expertise on Russian affairs, and Australia’s access in the Pacific.
“Remove those inputs and the US analytic picture narrows,” Tsukerman added. “The timing makes this even more reckless. Peace talks that crawl invite opportunism. Moscow excels at performative diplomacy that buys time while artillery writes the real story. If the negotiations sputter, a closed US loop does not create discipline. It creates blind spots. Partners with fresh intercepts or ground reads cannot correct the US picture in real time.”
The long-term danger of this snub lies in the erosion of trust among the Five Eyes. These closest allies may question whether they’re treated as allies. And even as America declines to share information with its partners, those partners might think twice about sharing information with America—or might be more transactional in how it is shared.
“The crown jewels of intelligence, the most sensitive signals and human sources, [would] become bargaining chips rather than routine contributions,” Tsukerman concluded. “When that happens, the strength of the Five Eyes is replaced by transactional calculations, and the alliance loses its unique character. A world where Britain or Australia hesitates before passing along a crucial lead is a world where adversaries gain breathing room. By narrowing the circle, Washington may think it is securing control. In reality, it risks making the United States more isolated.”
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu has contributed over 3,200 published pieces to more than four dozen magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].
Image: Shutterstock / metamorworks.
