The Five Eyes Have Noticed

Summary

Radio Atlantic: "The Five Eyes Have Noticed" – Detailed Summary

Release Date: February 27, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of Radio Atlantic, hosted by Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic delves deep into the alarming shifts within the global geopolitical landscape, particularly focusing on the deterioration of longstanding alliances and intelligence-sharing frameworks. Titled "The Five Eyes Have Noticed," the episode features insightful conversations with Ann Applebaum, author of Autocracy, Inc., and Shane Harris, Atlantic’s staff writer covering national security. Together, they explore the ramifications of the Trump administration’s recent foreign policy maneuvers and the potential erosion of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

---

Section 1: Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump

The episode opens with Hanna Rosin highlighting President Donald Trump’s disruptive approach to international alliances. Ann Applebaum elaborates on the sudden and negative shift in U.S. rhetoric towards allies, marking a stark departure from post-World War II cooperative norms.

• Notable Quote:

  Ann Applebaum [02:43]: “The language and body language... has been strikingly negative.”

Key Points:

• Supercilious Attitude: Vice President J.D. Vance referred to EU leaders as "commissars" at a Munich security conference, undermining trust and respect.

• Restarting Conversations with Russia: Trump's administration began dialogues with Russia, not aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict but seemingly to forge a new, unsettling U.S.-Russian relationship.

• UN Vote Reversal: In a surprising move, the U.S. opposed a UN motion condemning Russian aggression alongside Russia and its allies, signaling a potential realignment away from traditional Western alliances.

---

Section 2: Implications for the Post-World War II Order

Ann Applebaum provides a historical context, emphasizing the importance of the post-World War II alliances that have fostered global peace and economic prosperity.

• Notable Quote:

  Ann Applebaum [08:24]: “The post World War II order... was a set of alliances that the US built in Europe... and also in Asia.”

Key Points:

• Economic and Military Influence: The U.S. led the development of prosperous, secure zones by aligning Europe and Asia through economic investments and military cooperation.

• Impact of Withdrawal: Withdrawing from these alliances disrupts established economic ties and undermines mutual security arrangements, potentially destabilizing regions dependent on U.S. leadership.

---

Section 3: Betrayal of Ukraine and the Unprecedented Deal

A central focus is the controversial document presented to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, which proposed Ukraine ceding 50% of its natural resources to the U.S. indefinitely—a move likened to colonial exploitation.

• Notable Quote:

  Ann Applebaum [11:54]: “Ukraine is supposed to sign away 50% of its natural resources... to the United States indefinitely.”

Key Points:

• Unprecedented Demand: Such a demand from a sovereign nation is unprecedented in modern diplomacy, raising concerns about exploitation and loss of Ukrainian sovereignty.

• Implications for Autocrats: This move sends a dangerous message to autocratic leaders globally that aggression might be rewarded, undermining international norms against territorial conquest.

• Evolving U.S.-Russia Relations: Trump's affinity for Putin and the administration’s actions suggest a possible strategic realignment with Russia, threatening the security guarantees previously assured to Ukraine and other allies.

---

Section 4: Consequences for European Security and Alliances

The episode discusses the rapid realignment of European nations in response to the U.S. shifting stance, highlighting fears of diminished American support and increased European autonomy in defense.

• Notable Quote:

  Ann Applebaum [16:28]: “If the US is serious about withdrawing from Europe... there will be a moment when Europe is not yet prepared for that scenario.”

Key Points:

• European Independence: Leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz advocate for Europe to take more responsibility for its own defense, aligning with Trump’s desire to reduce U.S. involvement.

• Preparation Lag: The swift nature of the U.S. policy shift leaves Europe unprepared for self-reliant defense mechanisms, risking regional instability during the transition.

• Long-Term Economic and Political Effects: Reduced U.S. presence could lead to decreased sales of U.S. defense products in Europe and weaken the overall security architecture established since World War II.

---

Section 5: Intelligence Sharing and the Five Eyes Alliance Under Threat

Transitioning to the second half, Shane Harris discusses the potential impacts of the U.S.'s foreign policy shifts on intelligence-sharing mechanisms, particularly the Five Eyes alliance comprising the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.

• Notable Quote:

  Shane Harris [22:36]: “The most important intelligence sharing arrangement that the United States has is something that is referred to as the five eyes.”

Key Points:

• Five Eyes Collaboration: This alliance relies on mutual trust and the secure sharing of highly sensitive intelligence, pivotal for counter-terrorism and national security.

• Eroding Trust: Trump's history of leaking classified information and the administration’s chaotic handling of intelligence raises concerns among allies about the reliability and security of shared information.

• Potential Exclusion: Reports emerged suggesting proposals to exclude Canada from the Five Eyes, indicative of how U.S. policies could disrupt international intelligence cooperation.

---

Section 6: Potential Shifts in Intelligence Dependencies

Shane Harris explores how European intelligence agencies might recalibrate their dependencies on U.S. intelligence in light of the shifting geopolitical landscape.

• Notable Quote:

  Shane Harris [27:39]: “Everyone is aware that the nature of the alliance is shifting... perhaps not irrevocably, but at least for the foreseeable future.”

Key Points:

• Building Independent Capabilities: European nations, recognizing the shifting dynamics, may invest more in their own intelligence infrastructures to reduce reliance on the U.S.

• Tailored Intelligence Sharing: Countries might develop more specific and tailored intelligence-sharing frameworks that better align with their regional security interests.

• Collective Security Risks: The potential weakening of the Five Eyes could result in less effective threat detection and response, endangering global security due to fragmented intelligence efforts.

---

Conclusion

The episode "The Five Eyes Have Noticed" underscores a pivotal moment in global politics where historical alliances are being tested by unilateral policy shifts. The discussions with Ann Applebaum and Shane Harris reveal deep concerns about the future of international cooperation, the integrity of intelligence-sharing frameworks, and the overarching stability of the post-World War II order. As the U.S. navigates a path that appears increasingly isolated, the repercussions of these changes extend far beyond political rhetoric, potentially reshaping the very foundations of global security and prosperity.

---

Notable Production Credits:

• Produced by: Janae West
• Edited by: Claudina Baid
• Engineered by: Rob Smirciak
• Fact-Checked by: Yvonne Kim
• Executive Producer: Claudina Baid, Atlantic Audio
• Managing Editor: Andrea Valdez

Host: Hanna Rosin

Transcript

[Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling. Wherever you sell with Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial [e-mail] tech. All lowercase. That's shopify.com tech what makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.

[Hanna Rosin]

When Donald Trump was running for his second term as president last year, he gave plenty of hints that he didn't care all that much about staying chummy with our European allies. For example, he once said if NATO countries didn't pay their fair share, he would encourage Russia to, quote, do whatever the hell they want. So maybe no one should be surprised a year later that he and members of his administration are spending their first few weeks in office offending their allies and shaking up the world order. But it is kind of surprising, at least the speed of it and the dismissive tone, for example, Vice President J.D. vance telling EU leadership, some of whom he referred to as commissars, that their countries were suppressing free speech. Or Donald Trump repeating Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine.

[Shane Harris]

Three years. You should have never started it.

[Ann Applebaum]

You could have made a deal.

[Shane Harris]

I could have made a deal for Ukraine that would have given him almost all of the land.

[Hanna Rosin]

I'm Hanna Rosin, this is Radio Atlantic. Today we talk about what this shift in the world order might mean. In the second half of the show, we'll be talking to staff writer Shane Harris, who covers national security, about how intelligence agencies are reacting to these change. But first we talked to Ann Applebaum, author of the book Autocracy, Inc. And host of the podcast Autocracy in America. Ann started her career tracking autocracy around the globe, and with the rise of Trump, she started noticing it creeping up in her own country.

[Ann Applebaum]

You know, I went around Germany like five years ago and did Cassandra like Lamentations and nobody believed me. You know, and now like I have, every German newspaper wants me to say, how do you feel about being right. And I'm like, I feel like shit. You know? What do you mean? How do I feel about being right? I feel terrible. I don't want to be right.

[Hanna Rosin]

Ann this new administration's shift in tone has been so sudden and so stark that I want to understand it better and figure out what its implications might be.

[Ann Applebaum]

So, number one, the language and body language that have been coming out of, not just from the White House, but from the Defense secretary, from many people affiliated with Trump over the last few days, last couple of weeks, has been strikingly negative. The vice president went to a security conference in Munich where generals and secretaries of defense and security analysts were gathered to hear the administration's view of what it felt about the Russian military threat to Europe and to the United States and to the rest of the world. And instead, he made a supercilious speech mocking them. That was number one. Number two, Donald Trump announced a restart of conversation with Russia. That wasn't an attempt to find a solution to the war that would keep Ukraine safe and sovereign. It seemed to be an attempt to create a US Russian relationship of a new kind that seemed very sinister. And then finally, I think it was the real turning point. And this, for many people, was a stunner, I think, was a UN Vote. Ukraine and its allies around the world proposed a motion condemning Russian aggression. The US not only did not back the motion, the US Voted against it, together with Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, the Central African Republicans, and a handful of other Russian allies around the world. And that package of things put together is an indication that the US Appears to be switching sides.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah, I guess that's the way to put it. The US Appears to be switching sides. I mean, I'm trying to think of the right way to characterize this. I mean, you immediately said the end of the post World War II order, like you declared that right after these things happened. Do you feel strongly, you feel definitively about that?

[Ann Applebaum]

I feel definitive about it. That doesn't mean other things aren't going to happen. It doesn't mean it's not reversible. It doesn't mean that Trump won't get pulled in other directions. The Russians are famous for lying about what their plans are and for promising things they don't deliver. He may find himself disappointed with the relationship he's trying to build with Putin. I'm not saying that there's a straight line from here in a predictable direction, but I think I can safely say that no American administration, Democrat or Republican, since the 1940s, has talked the way the Trump administration talks. In other words, not just doubting its allies or criticizing its allies. I mean, that's happened lots of times. But actually criticizing the fundamental premise of the alliance. The impression Europeans have now is that that's not true anymore. And because they were still pretty sure it was true three weeks ago. This is a very sudden and rapid change.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right. And like, this is not a good thing. I hear the alarm in your voice. Why is the post World War II order important?

[Ann Applebaum]

The post World War II order, and I mean, even calling it an order is too highfaluting. I mean, it really just a set of alliances that the US Built in Europe, and I should keep saying in Asia as well, Japan, South Korea, Australia are also part of the same world. It was a world the US Built in which a group of the world's wealthiest countries agreed to work together to share their security, to develop similar and compatible economies. The US Together with the Europeans and their Asian allies, created these real zones of prosperity and peace, and the U.S. was a beneficiary of that same prosperity. The U.S. was the major investor in these countries. The U.S. was allowed to lead in all kinds of ways. U.S. ideas about trade or about economics were genuflected to. Although maybe that sounds too subservient, but I mean, the people wanted U.S. leadership. The U.S. benefited from leadership. And the U.S. had those allies when it wanted to do other things, when it wanted. When the US Went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. So American allies also went when the US Wanted to fight terrorism in the Middle east or around the world. U.S. allies cooperated. They cooperated with intelligence. They sometimes cooperated militarily. They sent soldiers when they were asked to send them. So the US had an unusual kind of power in the world. So other countries, of course, have military power and economic influence, but the US Had a form of economic and military influence that persuaded other countries to join it. This has been true over many years in many different ways. It means that when European countries are considering big investments, big power plants, they will sometimes choose U.S. companies over their own or over those of their neighbors because they want to maintain those good relations with America.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah, I mean, I guess what's rattling about this moment is there isn't a precipitating event. There isn't a ratcheting up of hostilities the way has been historically. It's just Trump. It's just, you know, he changed his mind, so there's really no warning. However, he did signal during his campaign, you know, Russia should be able to do whatever the hell it wanted is what's rattling, especially about this moment. The speed, like it all unraveled in, you know, a few weeks.

[Ann Applebaum]

So I would go farther. I mean, Trump has been talking about his disdain for allies and alliances since the 1980s, 1987, notoriously, he took out these huge newspaper ads after a trip to Moscow, I should say, saying that alliances were a waste of money and we shouldn't. At that time, Japan people were particularly worried about. During his first term, he repeatedly looked uncomfortable with allies, attacked them, disparaged them, famously wanted to leave NATO. He told John Bolton that he wanted to leave NATO on the way to a NATO summit. And he was talked down by Bolton and by Jim Mattis and by others. So in that sense, it's nothing new. Nevertheless, since the election, Trump mostly was talking in a normal way to allies. He had phone conversations with European leaders and Asian leaders. Just a few weeks ago, he was saying, putin's a loser. We need to put pressure on him to end the war. And then suddenly, as you say, it was the speed about 10 days ago, about two weeks ago, maybe suddenly, the tone shifted and switched.

[Hanna Rosin]

The whole thing brings up the forever question about Trump. Is he chaotic or intentional? Which I think is important here, because intentional would imply that he is actively remaking the world order, like actively aligning the US With Russia. Do you sense that's the case?

[Ann Applebaum]

I think it's a possibility, yeah.

[Hanna Rosin]

You do?

[Ann Applebaum]

I do.

[Hanna Rosin]

And why? What are the best guesses about why? To what end?

[Ann Applebaum]

The best guesses include he's been convinced of wealth and riches to be had for the United States or perhaps for people in his entourage by a better relationship with Russia. He's been convinced that putting pressure on Ukraine rather than on Russia will end the war quickly. He's bored of the war. He doesn't really know how to end it, and he's looking for a shortcut. Those are the guesses that we have. I mean, whether there's been a specific conversation or a specific offer, I don't know. But the fact also that he, and I should have included this in my list, the fact that he has been repeating Russian propaganda, so saying things that aren't true, but that are the kind of thing that you hear from the Russian media and from the pro Russian media in the United States means that he's hearing that from somebody. And so the best guess is that he's been speaking to someone who has convinced him, who has changed his mind or has convinced him that Russia is a better and more predictable ally than France or Britain. Or Germany or Japan.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah, I mean, that's the moment where I sat up and took notice, is the way he was talking about Ukraine, repeating such obvious lies about the origins of that war. And then also that document that the Treasury Secretary offered Ukraine. Can you describe that document? That one, for me, was a shocker.

[Ann Applebaum]

Okay, so this is a document of a kind that I can't think of a precedent for. It was given to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine first by the Treasury Secretary who went to Kyiv to do this. And essentially the document says Ukraine is supposed to sign away 50% of its natural resources, both rare earth minerals and other minerals and other resources and income from ports and infrastructure to the United States indefinitely. So the Ukrainians are meant to hand over half of their national wealth for the foreseeable future to Americans. And in an unclear way, it's not clear to whom they would give this wealth and how the wealth would be extracted and how it would be measured. And who would decide what 50% was. None of that is clear at all. And they would do that out of some kind of gratitude to Americans or some kind of fealty to Donald Trump, perhaps, and they would not receive any clear security guarantees or anything else in exchange.

[Hanna Rosin]

And what's unprecedented about that? That it's unfolding like a real estate negotiation, or what is unusual about it?

[Ann Applebaum]

An open ended demand from a sovereign country that it hand over its wealth to another country. I mean, this is a kind of 18th century colonial way of dealing with the country. And this is, of course, a country that's been an ally to the United States, that's been worked closely with US Intelligence, that's been a part of an American security structure. It's as if you went to your neighbor with whom you'd had cordial relations with a long time, who'd helped you fix your car, and with whom you had good relations and said, actually, in exchange for all that, exchange for the salt I lent you and the cookies I baked you. I'm demanding half of your wealth right.

[Hanna Rosin]

Now, by the way. A few hours after recording this, there were reports that the proposed deal was updated. The new version apparently now includes a vague mention of security guarantees for Ukraine. And Zelensky is supposedly flying to Washington later this week to meet with Trump about it. We don't have many more details, but Ann's neighbor analogy still holds. Okay, back to the conversation. So the obvious thing to read into this betrayal of Ukraine is there is no sanction for autocrats who want to invade other countries. Do you think that is the intended message.

[Ann Applebaum]

I don't know whether Trump understands that is the message. And also because I still don't understand what the end game is, how exactly he thinks the war will end. I don't want to say something terrible has happened before it's happened. Right. But, yes, if the war ends in such a way that Ukraine loses its sovereignty or is forced into some kind of humiliating situation or is unable to defend itself in the future against a rebuilt Russian army two years from now, then, yes, the conclusion will be that might makes. Right. Big countries are allowed to invade small ones and get away with it. And not only will the US not help you if you're a democracy being invaded by your dictatorial neighbor, but the US Might side with the invader.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right.

[Ann Applebaum]

And that would be the lesson. And that, too, I mean, there are cascading consequences.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah. And you've talked about, you know, during the Ukraine war, you've talked about the importance of us standing up for Ukraine, because there are consequences for Estonia. I mean, there are consequences for lots of countries.

[Ann Applebaum]

There are consequences for Germany, There are consequences for Britain.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right.

[Ann Applebaum]

You know, maybe there are even consequences for the United States. I mean, if we won't, you know, what are we prepared to defend?

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah. As things are realigning quickly. I mean, French President Emmanuel Macron seemed to indicate in his visit to Washington this week that, in fact, Europe should be less dependent on the US and more in charge of its own defense. And that's what Trump says he wants. Could that be a neutral shift? Like, is that necessarily a terrible shift? How should we think of that? That kind of shift where Europe is more in charge of contributing to security for its own region?

[Ann Applebaum]

I think it's a fine shift and one that I've been arguing for for a long time, but it's not a shift that you can do in two weeks. And so there is a very dangerous moment coming. What do you mean? Well, if the US Is serious about withdrawing from Europe or if that's the way that Trump wants to go, then there will be a moment when Europe is not yet prepared for that scenario.

[Hanna Rosin]

I see. So it just can't happen this quickly. Like the same as Doge. It's just sort of come and burn everything. But it's not like an intelligent or useful.

[Ann Applebaum]

No, it's not an intelligent solution.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah.

[Ann Applebaum]

As I said, they're also. I don't know whether Trump or people around him have thought this through. I mean, the US Gains a lot of advantages by being the lead security power in Europe. And will European Countries still want to buy U.S. weapons. Will they want to buy U.S. security products? There would be consequences for the U.S. too. I mean, it's not like the U.S. just withdraws and Europe takes over and everything's fine. No, there would be, as I said, this kind of cascading series of economic and political consequences that might turn out to be quite dramatic.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah. Last thing I know, you were in Munich with defense and security officials, people who help with Ukrainian defense. I'm curious what the mood is of people who have to think on the ground about strategy and defense and how quickly they've been able to adjust.

[Ann Applebaum]

People are adjusting very fast. The new chancellor of Germany who was elected on Sunday, Friedrich Mertz, one of the first things that he said was we have to prepare for a new world in which we are independent of the United States. And I can't tell you how dramatic that is. He's been pro America. He's been an advocate for close relations between Germany and America and Europe in America. And to have him say that means that people are thinking fast. So it will take a long time, of course, for military production cycles and strategic planning to change. But the beginning of the mental change has already started.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right. Well, Anne, thank you so much for joining us and for naming everything that's happening so clearly. It's so helpful. Thank you.

[Ann Applebaum]

Thanks.

[Hanna Rosin]

After the break, spies, we talked to Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris about how these shifting alliances are affecting the intelligence community and what that might mean for American security down the road. So in the first half of the show, we talked about the shifting world order and the political issues it causes. And now I kind of want to talk to you about operational issues like sharing of intelligence spycraft, you know, the things that happen between nations that makes the world run. So from your reporting, are you finding that any agencies, governments are wondering how much they can trust the U.S. i.

[Shane Harris]

Think that has been a question that has been simmering for a lot of the country's allies since even before the election when they looked to the possibility that Donald Trump might come back to office. How much could they trust the United States to be a reliable partner in protecting secrets, protecting intelligence that they might share? I should say it wasn't like a five alarm fire kind of worry, but people were really starting to ask this because Donald Trump had a history of disclosing other countries information, disclosing the United States own secrets in some cases, and notably was criminally charged for mishandling classified information. So I think with his election, those anxieties rose. And now what we're seeing is kind of compounding that is this even more, I might even say kind of existential question of not just can we count on the allies saying not just can we count on the United States to protect our information and be a good security partner at the kind of tactical level, but can we count on them to be a good partner strategically at all anymore? And I think all of these questions are kind of colliding right now and really undermining what had been decades of confidence that European allies in particular had had in the United States, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democr Democrat was sitting in the Oval Office.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right. Can you actually explain how intelligence sharing works? Like who are our critical partners? You know, who provides intelligence, who provides the most intelligence, just so that we understand what could change?

[Shane Harris]

Yes. So the most important intelligence sharing arrangement that the United States has is something that is referred to as the five eyes, and that refers to five countries, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand that have this long standing kind of pact where they share highly sensitive intelligence and information on a routine basis when it's with one another that's of interest to their mutual security. And, and really the sort of, the big, big, big players in this often are the United States and the United Kingdom. Just to kind of give you an example of how closely we share information with the UK when it comes to signals intelligence, which is like electronic eavesdropping, intercepting emails, communication, the physical infrastructure, you know, literally like the technology, the kit that these two countries rely on is intertwined. In some locations it is that closely enmeshed on the level of human intelligence. So information that an agency gets from spies in the field or from assets that it has, the US and the UK routinely share the fruits of that kind of intelligence with each other as well. And all the other partners do that on a pretty regular basis too. And then the United States does share, maybe on a less exclusive, maybe a bit more restricted basis, but certainly shares with other NATO allies, you know, France, Germany, the United States, you know, for decades has depended extensively on German intelligence to tell us information about terrorist organizations and particular threats that are brewing in Europe that might be of interest or a threat to the United States. So this is the kind of, you know, on the ground, if you like, level of sharing that goes on just routinely. And it happens importantly via channels and via career employees that are regardless of who the heads of government, the heads of state are in the various member countries.

[Hanna Rosin]

By the way, the term five eyes, it's so good. Like it's a little on the nose, but it's so good. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a movie or no one's written a novel called the Five Eyes in which one of them betrays each other or something like that happens.

[Shane Harris]

I've always loved it because, you know, it's. They're all watching.

[Hanna Rosin]

Exactly.

[Shane Harris]

And importantly, I should say, and interesting to follow on that. And the five Eyes in that agreement, what's important too is they do not spy on each other.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right.

[Shane Harris]

That is something that's also very special to the relationship in those five countries.

[Hanna Rosin]

I mean, I'm reading in the lines of what you're saying. So we don't know the degree of mistrust yet. It's probably brewing. But it sounds like from what you're saying, it makes everybody less safe. Like it makes us less safe too, because these are how, you know, terrorist threats are detected and these networks are very intertwined. So it feels a little precarious, dangerous.

[Shane Harris]

I think that's right. I think, and you're right to say that it makes everyone less safe because if any country is holding back on information, arguably that is potentially making everybody less informed and less aware, which could have real world implications. And you know, I should stress that no one has said to me, well, we're just going to stop sharing information with the United States because we don't trust you. The real concern now is that a, the United States might just start cutting off information flows to other countries. We did see this week the Financial Times had a very interesting report that Peter Navarro, who is sort of a kind of an aide to Donald Trump, who is known for saying some pretty outlandish things I should say was raising the idea that Canada should be kicked out of the Five Eyes arrangement. And presumably this is some kind of coercive measure that would be used to try and get more favorable trading terms from Canada. Now, Navarro came out and said there was nothing to this, it was a made up story. But we have heard rumors of this. I've heard chatter about it before about whether or not Trump was considering doing that. The mere idea that the United States would be using Five Eyes membership and kind of access to national security intelligence to protect a country's citizens as a coercive measure to try and get more favorable trading terms, you know, strikes people I've talked to as appalling, but totally in keeping with what they would expect Donald Trump to do, which tells you just how far we've deviated from the norm.

[Hanna Rosin]

So what else are people bringing Up. You mentioned that makes them nervous. You mentioned, you know, Trump has leaked secrets before. Like, I think he didn't. He famously tweet a top secret image of an Iranian rocket launch site. I mean, he's known for being a little lax with other people's intelligence. So that's one thing. Is that on people's minds?

[Shane Harris]

That's definitely on people's minds. You know, there was a famous incident in his, the first year of his first term where he seemed to disclose a top secret source of information we were getting from Israeli intelligence during a meeting he had with two Russian officials, which didn't go over great. So there is that kind of general concern about Trump himself and the people around him being very leaky and using intelligence in a way that is to their own benefit and interest. That's been a worry. You know, another, I think, less appreciated concern has been this intelligence sharing relationship. While it is ostensibly a two way street, really, it's the other four or five eyes that are depending on the United States for most of the information. I mean, the British Security service, while very capable, is much smaller than the United States and they really depend on the information they're getting from the Americans. And it's less about how much the Brits are giving to us. And several people I've talked to in the five eyes community worry that as agencies, particularly like the FBI, which routinely shares information with the five eyes partners as they're going through this sort of chaotic period where they're being taken over by political loyalists like Cash Patel and Don Bongino, the new deputy director, and Trump has gone through and fired these sort of upper echelons of the career establishment or is trying to. Those are the people, the individuals with whom these different allied countries interact with on a regular basis. And some of them have said to me, look, you know, while you guys basically, you know, can't get your stuff together and you're kind of in chaos, we worry that that's gonna have a downstream negative effect on us because you're so distracted by politics and internal witch hunts and, you know, personnel matters that maybe you're taking the eye off the ball and we're not getting the usual high quality of intelligence that we depend on.

[Hanna Rosin]

Right. You know, some leaders in Europe have talked about, like Emmanuel Macron hinted at this in his meeting with Trump, that actually being less dependent on the US for their security might be a good thing for Europe. I wonder if there's a version of that for intelligence. Like, we don't want to be as dependent on the US there's some advantage to switching up the way that we've been doing things.

[Shane Harris]

I think that there is. I don't think that certainly intelligence officials I speak to aren't quite there yet in proposing it, but there is a. Everyone is aware that the nature of the alliance is shifting, and perhaps not irrevocably, but at least for the foreseeable future. If you take some intelligence agencies in Europe right now, take the British intelligence service and the Security service right now, for instance, they have been very aggressive and far more kind of at the front line of the action in Ukraine than the United States has. They've developed certain capabilities and networks and sources of information that are very useful to them. The European countries, UK Included, really do see the threat from Russia, I think, differently than Americans do. They see it as something that is very much kind of in their backyard. And because of that, I think that they have been devoting more resources to beefing up their own intelligence on Russia. And could that push them towards, you know, in a direction where maybe they say, look, we've got to start being less dependent on the United States and beef up our own capabilities and share with each other? I think that's quite possible. What the United States has to offer is, you know, technical reach. I mean, we're talking about electronic information. We're talking about just a constellation of satellites that can capture imagery and all kinds of other information. So the United States still has that bulk and has those numbers, but that does not mean that these other countries can't develop even more specific and tailored ways of collecting information that suit their own interests and make them less dependent on the United States. I think that could happen.

[Hanna Rosin]

Yeah. And that's, I suppose, value neutral. Like, we don't know if that's good or a bad thing.

[Shane Harris]

Well, I mean, look, count me on the side of people who believes that the alliances have been very much in the interests of the various members. And, you know, that this information sharing is just kind of a. It's a culture that now pervades among these countries.

[Ann Applebaum]

It's.

[Shane Harris]

It's. There's a belief that more sharing, you know, and a kind of mutual, not dependence, but, you know, this feeling of we're all in it together is generally good for the collective whole. I don't want to overstate this. The United States is the dominant intelligence force in the West. Could it go off on its own and probably be okay? Yeah, it probably could be for the near term, but you never want to be missing that one key piece of Information that tells you about a bigger threat. And I just don't see any reason, particularly other than Trump being Trump, why we need to blow up those alliances. But. But this is where we are right now, isn't it?

[Hanna Rosin]

Last thing, I mean, I'm thinking about Trump signaling his closeness with Vladimir Putin, how he recently repeated some Russian talking points. I wonder how those kinds of signals get received among the people you talk to, intelligence officials, sort of people who are guarding these alliances. What's the result of those kinds of actions?

[Shane Harris]

I think that they hear that and honestly, they think we've heard this before. Everyone talks a lot about J.D. vance's speech in Munich and some of the statements that Donald Trump has made about Zelensky being a dictator and this affection for Putin. And all of this has been happening in the past month. My mind goes back to 2018, when Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in Helsinki. And listeners may remember the question of Russia's interference in our elections in 2016 came up and Trump in front of the audience, in front of the world said that he believed Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies when Putin said that Russia didn't interfere in the election. And I think that was as stunning of a moment, of a kind of a single jaw dropping moment as I can remember in my career covering intelligence, that the President of the United States was standing there next to an ex KGB officer and saying, I believe him and not the US Intelligence community. Our allies heard that. And really, ever since then, you know, when I talk to people, you get a range of opinions from, you know, Donald Trump is just a businessman and he likes Putin's tough guy attitude all the way towards people think, you know, I can't prove it, but I've always suspected the Russians are either blackmailing him or somehow he's secretly an agent. Like, you get the range of opinions from people. So I think that they have just always, generally the security services in these allies countries have always seen that relationship that he has with Putin as a significant problem and it's one that they have to manage. So what they're hearing from him now with this affection for Putin is not new. The difference is, is that now Trump is actually breaking these alliances with the west and he is talking about a settlement in Ukraine that does not necessarily appear to be either in the interests of Ukraine or other European countries, and that has intelligence officials in Europe extreme, extremely nervous.

[Hanna Rosin]

I see. So this erosion of trust is long and slow. And what's been shocking to the rest of us, the intelligence community has been monitoring for a while. Those who are keeping close tabs, I think that's right. Well, Shane, thank you so much for joining us today. You always teach us so much about worlds that we don't know a lot about.

[Shane Harris]

It's great to be with you. Thanks, Hannah.

[Hanna Rosin]

This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Janae west and edited by Claudina Baid. It was engineered by Rob Smirciak and fact checked by Yvonne Kim. Claudina Baid is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I'm Hana Rosen. Thank you for listening.