By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dutch intelligence services are reducing information sharing with the United States, citing concerns over the politicization of intelligence and human rights violations under President Trump’s administration. This shift marks a departure from decades of close collaboration with US agencies like the CIA and NSA, with sharing now considered on a case-by-case basis. Simultaneously, cooperation within Europe is increasing, particularly among northern European intelligence services, driven by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Furthermore, the directors warned of cyber threats from Russia and China, urging caution for Dutch travelers to China due to potential data breaches and advocating for broader powers to act faster against cyberattacks.
Read the original article here
Dutch intelligence services now share less information with the US. Well, it seems like the whispers have become a roar. The news that the Dutch intelligence services, specifically the AIVD, are curtailing the flow of information shared with their American counterparts isn’t exactly a shocker. It’s more of a confirmation of a growing unease, a shift in the global intelligence landscape that’s been brewing for a while. You get the sense this isn’t just about the Netherlands; it’s a symptom of a larger problem.
This hesitation, this reluctance to share, likely stems from a deep-seated distrust. The US, once seen as a reliable partner in the intelligence game, now appears to be viewed by some as, well, a leaky sieve. The sentiment is that information poured into the American system doesn’t stay there. It gets… disseminated.
The core concern here, and the elephant in the room that’s hard to ignore, is the perceived vulnerability of US intelligence to foreign influence. The narrative, as it’s being painted, is that certain actors – let’s not name names, but you can probably guess – have direct lines of communication, perhaps even influence, within the US government. This raises the alarming possibility that sensitive intelligence is not just being leaked but is actively being channeled to adversaries.
And it’s not just about one-off incidents. It’s a systemic problem, a feeling that the US, for whatever reasons, is no longer capable of keeping secrets. The implication is that even the most well-intentioned American officials cannot guarantee the security of shared information. This is a tough pill to swallow for any ally. It really changes the nature of the game.
The result? Other countries, like the Netherlands, are starting to play their cards closer to their chest. Why share your best intel if it’s going to end up in the wrong hands? The argument is: sharing with the US is akin to handing information directly to adversaries. It’s better to be cautious, to protect your assets, and to err on the side of security.
There’s also a sense that the US, for all its perceived might, may not be using intelligence effectively. Perhaps the US is not doing much with all the intel they get. Is it being analyzed thoroughly? Is it being acted upon intelligently? Or is it simply being lost in a sea of data?
This change in the intelligence-sharing dynamic is not just a matter of operational security; it’s also a question of trust. For many, that trust has been eroded, and it’s going to take more than a change in administrations to rebuild it. Twenty years of stability is the rough estimate. That’s a long time. It speaks to the depth of the damage.
The potential impact of this shift is significant. It could weaken the alliances, hinder cooperative efforts, and make it more difficult to address global threats. It could also lead to a more fragmented intelligence environment, where different countries are working independently, or perhaps, working with other powers.
There’s an undercurrent of frustration here as well. The feeling is that the US has brought this upon itself. The erosion of trust, the perceived security breaches, the political turmoil – it all contributes to the problem.
Of course, this isn’t just about the Dutch. The fact that the AIVD is being public about their concerns is a sign. It suggests they’re trying to send a message, to signal a change in policy.
The whole situation is a wake-up call. It’s a reminder that the world is changing, that alliances are shifting, and that intelligence sharing is not a given. If the US wants to regain the trust of its allies, it needs to address these concerns head-on. It needs to prove that it can safeguard the secrets that are entrusted to it. If not, it will be left out of the game.