When people talk about national security, they usually picture satellites or special ops. But the real glue is trust. Honestly, that glue is looking pretty thin lately. There is a growing sense in the global intelligence community that Trump's actions could jeopardize intelligence sharing among us and allies, and we’re not just talking about a few awkward tweets here.
We are looking at a fundamental shift in how the world’s most powerful spy agencies talk to each other. It’s scary. If the UK or Australia thinks their secrets aren’t safe in Washington, they simply stop sending them. That's the nightmare scenario.
📖 Related: Cardinals in line to be pope: What most people get wrong about the next conclave
Why the Five Eyes might become "Three Blind Mice"
The "Five Eyes" — that’s the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — is basically the gold standard of keeping secrets together. They’ve shared almost everything since World War II. But lately, things have gotten weird. Analysts are actually starting to use the phrase "Three Blind Mice" to describe what happens if this bond snaps.
The problem isn't just one thing. It's a vibe of unpredictability. For instance, in late 2025, reports surfaced that some allies were already "quietly rebalancing." That’s spy-speak for "we’re holding back the good stuff." They’re worried that intelligence support is being used as a transactional lever rather than a mutual defense tool. If you feel like your best friend is going to sell your secrets to get a better trade deal, you’re going to stop telling them your business. Kinda makes sense, right?
The Greenland distraction and "Signal-gate"
One of the weirdest examples of how priorities have shifted involves Greenland. Yeah, Greenland. In the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, Greenland suddenly appeared four times. Why? Because the administration has made "taking over" Greenland a weirdly high priority.
📖 Related: Winter Storm Warning in NJ: What You’re Probably Missing When the Forecast Hits
Allies look at this and scratch their heads. When the US starts skewing its official threat reports to focus on real estate goals or campaign talking points — like fentanyl being moved to the very front of reports while traditional threats like Russian cyberwarfare get downplayed — it makes the "Five Eyes" partners nervous. They need unvarnished facts, not a curated list that matches a political stump speech.
The "NOFORN" problem and the trust deficit
There's this label in the intel world called NOFORN. It stands for "No Foreign Dissemination." Usually, it’s used sparingly for the most sensitive stuff. But recently, we've seen a massive spike in its use.
- Self-inflicted wounds: The 2023 Discord leaks (remember that airman sharing secrets on a gaming server?) really embarrassed the US.
- Defensive huddling: Because the US doesn't trust its own security sometimes, it slaps NOFORN on everything.
- Allied hesitation: Now, the closest partners, like the Brits or Canadians, find themselves locked out of reports they used to see daily.
This isn't just a paperwork issue. In the Caribbean, for example, US, UK, and Canadian law enforcement have actually struggled to coordinate anti-narcotic operations because the "trust account" is overdrawn. When the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, the bad guys win. Basically.
Firing the experts and the "enemies within"
You can’t talk about this without mentioning the massive turnover in the intelligence workforce. It’s been a bit of a bloodbath. With folks like Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth in key roles, and the firing of career experts, the institutional memory of these agencies is being wiped out.
Allies don’t just share data with a computer; they share it with people they’ve known for 20 years. When those people are replaced by political loyalists who might have "alternative" views on Russia or China, the phone stops ringing.
"Who will be comfortable sharing material gained from fragile technical means or human agents who might be put at risk if the US decides deeper cooperation with Russia requires disclosures or trade goods from the intel world?" — Strategic Analysis Australia, 2025.
That’s a heavy question. If a British agent is undercover in Moscow, the UK is going to be incredibly hesitant to share that agent's reports if they think the White House might accidentally (or on purpose) mention it to a Russian diplomat in the Oval Office. We’ve actually seen that happen before back in 2017 with Israeli intelligence.
The "Canada" factor: When allies become targets
Perhaps the most jarring development is the shift in tone toward Canada. There has been open talk from some corners of the administration about "taking over" parts of Canada or using force to handle border issues.
It sounds like a bad movie plot, but for Canadian intelligence officials, it’s a total dealbreaker. You don't share your top-tier counter-terrorism secrets with a neighbor who is threatening your sovereignty. It creates a "foundational problem" that no amount of diplomatic smoothing can fix.
What happens next?
So, where does this leave us? If Trump's actions could jeopardize intelligence sharing among us and allies to the point of a total breakdown, the world becomes a lot darker. Literally.
- Adversaries get a free pass: Russia and China thrive when the Five Eyes are squabbling.
- Slower response times: Without shared data, reacting to a new terrorist threat or a cyberattack takes days instead of minutes.
- Shadow Alliances: We might see European countries or the "other four" of the Five Eyes start their own sharing hubs that exclude the US entirely.
Actionable insights for the near future
If you’re watching this play out, keep an eye on these specific "canary in the coal mine" indicators:
- Security Clearance Revocations: Watch if the administration continues to pull clearances from critics like John Bolton or legal firms like WilmerHale. This signals that access to secrets is becoming a reward for loyalty, not a tool for security.
- The "NOFORN" Count: If more frontline reports about Ukraine or the Middle East are labeled as "US Only," the alliance is essentially dead in the water.
- Legislative Reauthorization: Look at whether Congress can pass vital information-sharing laws. If the political infighting stops these from being renewed, the legal "pipes" for sharing will literally rust over.
The reality is that intelligence sharing is a two-way street. If the US stops being a reliable partner, it doesn't just lose friends—it loses the eyes and ears that keep it safe in parts of the world where we don't have our own boots on the ground. It’s a high-stakes game of "he said, she said" where the cost of a mistake is measured in lives, not just political points.
To stay informed, follow the public versions of the Annual Threat Assessment and look for changes in how traditional adversaries like Russia are described compared to previous years. Significant shifts in "threat ordering" often reveal the underlying political pressure on the intelligence community.