European intelligence agencies are considering limiting the exchange of classified information with the United States due to the return of Donald Trump to the presidency. Allies fear data leaks, given his history of disclosing sensitive information.
Due to Trump’s past actions, European intelligence agencies are exercising caution when working with the US intelligence community. Trump has previously been involved in incidents where classified data was leaked, Politico reports, citing sources.
US allies that regularly share intelligence with Washington are looking for ways to protect top-secret information from what they expect to be a highly leak-prone Trump administration. However, their options are limited.
According to Politico, these nations have long been concerned that Trump’s tendency to disclose classified information will persist if he secures a second term. Their anxiety has grown following congressional approval of his controversial intelligence oversight policies and accusations of mishandling sensitive data.
Despite these concerns, intelligence cooperation between the US and its European allies remains deep-rooted and will not be easy to sever. Washington often provides more intelligence than it receives, and joint collection efforts and operations are commonplace between US and European agencies.
“You cannot just turn off the switch,” said a Northern European defence official, who, like others, spoke anonymously to discuss confidential intelligence matters.
Politico suggests that foreign intelligence agencies may introduce additional safeguards for human intelligence, which is among the most valuable and closely guarded information. To protect agents’ identities, European partners might withhold certain details when communicating with their US counterparts.
The publication recalls an incident from Trump’s first term when he tweeted a top-secret image of an Iranian missile launch site and disclosed highly confidential Israeli intelligence to the Russian foreign minister.
A former senior official of Britain’s MI6 foreign intelligence service revealed that during Trump’s first administration, MI6 was particularly cautious about what it shared with the US. MI6 declined to comment on the matter for this article.
“This is always the case under any administration—we share information for a reason. But last time, with Trump, we were even more careful, and I find it hard to believe that our service will not exercise even more caution this time,” the former official said.
Politico notes that foreign intelligence officials may prefer to engage more with CIA Director John Ratcliffe rather than Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Ratcliffe, who served as director of national intelligence in Trump’s first term, was considered one of the less controversial figures in his administration despite past accusations of politicising intelligence. During his tenure, “the sky did not fall,” said Randall Phillips, a former CIA officer who spent nearly 30 years in the agency’s Operations Division.
Ratcliffe was confirmed by the Senate last month with support from 20 Democrats and all Republican senators. CIA spokesperson Liz Lyons dismissed concerns that foreign partners might withhold intelligence under Trump’s leadership, stating that the agency takes its international intelligence partnerships “incredibly seriously.”
“Director Ratcliffe is actively strengthening these relationships to enhance US national security, counter adversaries, and promote international stability,” Lyons said.
The US Senate recently confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
Gabbard, appointed last week as the nation’s top intelligence official, has previously expressed scepticism toward US intelligence agencies and has echoed Kremlin narratives on the war in Ukraine. As a member of Congress, she introduced a resolution calling for all charges against former NSA contractor Edward Snowden—who leaked classified documents—to be dropped.
Although the role of Director of National Intelligence is largely bureaucratic, Gabbard will oversee the 18 agencies that form the US intelligence community and serve as the president’s chief intelligence adviser.
Responding to concerns raised by current and former intelligence officials, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Strategy and Communications Alexa Henning dismissed them, stating: “These anonymous former officials… are trying to undermine US national security by spreading lies through their media allies.”
Politico argues that the concerns are not hypothetical.
A month into its second term, the Trump administration has already faced accusations of mishandling classified information. The CIA reportedly sent an unclassified email listing the names and initials of newly hired analysts and operatives—many of whom were assigned to focus on China—to the Office of Personnel Management. This move was reportedly part of the administration’s attempt to reduce the federal workforce.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the move “a catastrophic decision for national security” that places “a direct target” on US recruits, particularly regarding China.
This situation is closely watched by members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which includes the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. This alliance is one of the most valuable networks for intelligence-sharing among Washington’s closest partners.
“Senior officials within the Five Eyes network are likely concerned, given the track record,” said Kelly McFarland, a former analyst with the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Politico notes that the imbalance of intelligence-sharing between the US and its allies means those allies have more to lose if they attempt to limit cooperation with Trump. His transactional approach to foreign affairs raises concerns that any attempts to withhold intelligence from the US could result in punitive measures.
“If they tried to conceal something, they would fear retaliation from the United States,” McFarland said.
The publication suggests that restructuring within the federal government may disrupt information-sharing, affecting intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Historically, the US has been the most significant source of intelligence among its Five Eyes partners and beyond. US intelligence was crucial in warning European allies about the Kremlin’s plans to invade Ukraine months before Russian forces crossed the border.
“It is not just about sharing information; it is also about receiving it. The US has important eyes and ears in Ukraine,” said a senior German official, who requested anonymity.
Despite concerns, intelligence-sharing between allies continues.
“Our policy has not changed,” said Kaupo Rosin, Director of Foreign Intelligence for Estonia.
“We have many concerns, but this is not one of them,” stated another European official.
The publication reports that others remain uneasy.
“Political trust in the US is eroding, and this affects all aspects of national security, including the intelligence community,” said a former British military official. “However, at the operational level, I do not believe there is a problem—yet.”
“This is more of a political issue than an operational one. But at some point, these worlds will converge,” the former British military official added.
