The Five Eyes Alliance and the Erosion of Trust under Trump’s Policy

by Andrea Molle.

The Five Eyes alliance, formed in the aftermath of World War II, stands as one of the world’s most powerful intelligence-sharing networks. Comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the Five Eyes represents a rare example of international cooperation in the shadowy world of intelligence and security. Its members share classified data, conduct joint operations, and regularly assess global threats. In doing so, they provide each other with the critical information necessary to protect national interests, prevent terrorism, and respond to military challenges.

For nearly eight decades, the Five Eyes nations have operated on the bedrock of mutual trust. This trust has allowed them to cooperate seamlessly, sharing not just intelligence but also strategic priorities. However, recent developments under the leadership of Donald Trump have raised concerns that this partnership may be on the verge of collapse.

Since the beginning of his current tenure, Trump’s policies and rhetoric have cast a long shadow over U.S. relations with its closest allies. His decision to withdraw military and intelligence support from Ukraine, for instance, signaled a dramatic shift in American foreign policy. This withdrawal, which came amid growing Russian aggression, has left U.S. allies perplexed and anxious about the reliability of the United States as a partner. While Trump’s decision was ostensibly driven by a desire to focus on American interests, it has further strained trust among the Five Eyes nations.

Indeed, as the U.S. pulls back from its commitments, countries like the UK and Canada are left scrambling to fill the gap. There are already plans for European powers increasing defense spending and stepping up aid to Ukraine. But the larger question looms: what does it mean for the Five Eyes when one of its founding members, the U.S., signals that it no longer shares the same level of commitment to the alliance’s common goals?

The roots of the problem lie not just in Trump’s controversial foreign policy decisions but also in his reckless handling of sensitive information. Several instances, including the leaking of classified material to foreign leaders and his mishandling of documents, have led to doubts about the United States’ reliability in safeguarding intelligence. If the U.S. can’t protect its own classified data, how can it be trusted to handle the secrets of its Five Eyes allies?

This has had a ripple effect across the alliance. Countries that were once eager to share intelligence with the U.S. now find themselves questioning whether doing so is worth the risk. British and Canadian officials have expressed concern that their intelligence may be mishandled or misused, with severe consequences for national security. And perhaps even more troubling is the growing sense that the U.S. is no longer prioritizing the long-term security of its allies. The Five Eyes has always operated on the principle of “shared risk”; when one partner is compromised, all partners feel the impact.

Trump’s “America First” rhetoric has also contributed to a shift in global power dynamics, as the U.S. increasingly turns inward. Under his leadership, the U.S. has not only reduced its support for traditional alliances like NATO but has also shown little regard for the broader international order. The consequences of this approach are not just theoretical—they are already being felt. European leaders, particularly in the UK, have been forced to reconsider their security arrangements. Some are even contemplating the possibility of forming alternative alliances without the U.S. in response to Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy.

For countries like the UK, this is a particularly difficult dilemma. The Five Eyes alliance has been the cornerstone of British intelligence operations for decades, providing unparalleled access to U.S. intelligence capabilities. But in light of Trump’s erratic behavior, there is now a growing realization that Britain may need to diversify its intelligence partnerships to safeguard its security interests. This could lead to a realignment of alliances, with European powers seeking closer ties with NATO members outside of the U.S. or even exploring cooperation with other global players.

The fallout from Trump’s policies is also evident in his approach to global conflicts. His withdrawal of support for Ukraine, for example, has left European nations in an uncomfortable position. With the U.S. retreating from the battlefield, NATO members like the UK and France have had to take a more active role in supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. This has led to an increased sense of uncertainty among Five Eyes partners about the reliability of the U.S. as an ally. If the U.S. is willing to abandon its commitments to one of its closest allies in the face of Russian expansionism, what will happen when the next global crisis emerges?

There is also the looming issue of U.S.-China relations, which has further complicated the Five Eyes’ ability to maintain cohesion. Trump’s approach to China—characterized by a trade war and attempts to undermine Beijing’s technological rise—has pushed the U.S. closer to a confrontation with China. This, in turn, has forced Five Eyes nations to take sides. While Australia and the U.K. have supported the U.S. stance on China, countries like Canada and New Zealand have shown a reluctance to take a hardline approach, partly due to their economic ties with China. This divide could undermine the shared intelligence framework that has been the hallmark of the Five Eyes, especially as global power dynamics shift.

As we look ahead, the future of the Five Eyes alliance is uncertain. The increasing unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy under Trump—coupled with concerns about intelligence mishandling and diplomatic isolationism—has left many wondering if the alliance can continue in its current form. If the U.S. remains unwilling or unable to reaffirm its commitments to its allies, the Five Eyes may need to undergo a significant transformation. The alliance could evolve to rely more heavily on its European members, with new arrangements forged outside of the U.S. orbit. In conclusion, while the Five Eyes alliance has been a powerful force in global security for decades, the current state of U.S. policy under Donald Trump has placed this partnership at risk. If trust continues to erode, the very foundations of the alliance could crumble, forcing its members to chart a new course. The question remains: can the Five Eyes remain united in the face of a changing world order, or will they be forced to adapt to a future without the United States at its core?