By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s foreign policy and personal attacks on UK opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer have eroded trust between the United States and its closest ally. The US President’s “America First” approach and public criticism of British military involvement have led to uncertainty within Whitehall and UK intelligence agencies. This distrust has resulted in measures such as excluding American officials from sensitive meetings, signaling a significant strain on the long-standing “special relationship.”
Read the original article here
UK security officials have initiated a significant shift in their intelligence-sharing practices, now actively withholding sensitive information from their US counterparts. This decision stems directly from growing concerns surrounding former President Donald Trump and his administration’s approach to international relations and classified data. The move signifies a profound erosion of trust, prompting a reassessment of the long-standing “special relationship” between the two nations.
American officials who have been embedded within UK government departments are now reportedly being excluded from meetings where highly sensitive intelligence is discussed. This exclusion highlights the palpable unease and the practical steps being taken to safeguard information deemed too precarious to share when US personnel are present. The underlying fear is that British secrets will no longer be guaranteed to remain classified, given the perception that the former US President harbors “no compulsion about screwing over allies.”
This withdrawal of intelligence is seen by some as a rational and necessary response to a perceived shift in US national security strategy. There are observations that the US, under certain leadership, has aimed at destabilizing European alliances and influencing regime change within European countries by backing far-right, anti-democratic forces that align with Russia. This broader geopolitical concern directly impacts the UK’s decision-making regarding intelligence sharing.
Consequently, former allies are increasingly being urged to consider the United States as a potential adversary rather than a trusted partner. This sentiment is underscored by past events, such as Danish troops reportedly being instructed to prepare for potential conflict and to destroy runways in Greenland in anticipation of an American invasion. Such incidents contribute to a narrative of unreliability and unpredictability from the US.
The UK’s decision is therefore viewed by many as the only sensible course of action, a smart move in a rapidly changing and increasingly uncertain global landscape. The “US regime,” as it is sometimes referred to in this context, is no longer considered a dependable entity for the secure exchange of vital intelligence. This sentiment is echoed by a desire from the UK, the EU, and elements of NATO to insulate themselves from what is perceived as “madness” emanating from the US.
The realization that “this man was never to be trusted” is a recurring theme, with a hope that supporters of the “MAGA” movement now fully grasp the implications of his leadership. The argument is made that America previously possessed elements of greatness, but has since been diminished under the current leadership. This sentiment is further amplified by the observation that Trump himself would be unable to reciprocate any intelligence withholding, as he purportedly lacks significant intelligence assets to share.
The situation is framed as an inevitable consequence of a US administration actively perceived as a threat to many European allies, including Denmark. The question is posed as to how the UK can engage in sensitive discussions about European security with Americans present when the US itself is seen as actively working to dismantle or disrupt European security structures. The analogy is drawn that it would be akin to having representatives from Iran, Russia, and China in the same room.
The “Trump criminal organization” is labeled an unreliable partner, and the assertion is made that the USA can no longer be trusted. This sentiment is exacerbated by what is described as the US government making it “abundantly clear that they can’t be trusted in any way shape or form.” The idea that one cannot alienate allies and then expect continued partnership is central to this perspective.
The fact that this issue is now surfacing publicly suggests that these practices have been in place for a considerable time. There is a general consensus that this is the correct course of action, with the belief that every country should adopt similar measures. The idea of extending an invitation to the former President for a state visit is considered unthinkable.
The United States is increasingly being viewed not as an ally, but as an adversary. The analogy is used of not providing exam answers to a schoolyard bully, underscoring the lack of faith in sharing sensitive information. The very notion of associating “Trump and intelligence” in the same sentence is met with disbelief.
Gratitude is expressed that this step is finally being taken, with some suggesting it should have occurred much earlier, perhaps from the outset of Trump’s second term. A past incident is referenced where Trump met with Russians privately, followed by the subsequent discovery and killing of undercover agents worldwide, implying a connection and a leak of sensitive information.
The UK’s action is also interpreted as a move to prevent intelligence from falling into the hands of Russia, described as a “smart move.” It’s suggested that this has been happening for some time, fueled by suspicions of the former President being a “suspected Russian asset” and his threats towards NATO countries.
The response is largely seen as predictable and common sense, with many expressing surprise that it took so long to implement. There is a prevailing sentiment that allies should have ceased sharing intelligence with a Trump administration much earlier, perhaps by 2018. The reasoning is that he is perceived to “answer to Russia.”
Furthermore, some point to past instances where the UK has been involved in actions leading to civilian casualties in the Caribbean, using Five Eyes intelligence to target individuals based on suspicion. This is presented as a parallel, suggesting a broader historical context of concerns regarding US intelligence use.
The presence of individuals within the Trump administration, such as Jared Kushner and others, are also cited as potential security risks, with allegations that they were willing to compromise national security for personal gain. This perception of internal compromise further fuels the distrust.
From an American perspective, there is an understanding and support for the UK’s decision. Many Americans feel their country is no longer the same and express a desire to undo the damage caused by the “orange ass clown.” The geographical distance is seen as a small comfort, compared to being “stuck here with no healthcare and my tax dollars going to blowing up Palestinians and schools in Iran.”
The “tit for tat” response from UK intelligence is seen as entirely sensible given Trump’s “America First” approach and disregard for allied partnerships. When a president publicly threatens military action against Greenland and tells allies they must “learn how to fight for yourself,” such consequences are deemed natural. Trust, it is observed, takes decades to build and moments to destroy.
The delay in implementing these measures is a point of contention, with many astonished that it has taken this long. The assumption is that the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance has been “functionally comatose,” and that other allied nations likely share the same lack of trust in the former President.
The US National Security Strategy, influenced by Trump, labeling Europe a greater threat than Russia and China, is highlighted as a significant provocation. This is seen as a blatant lie that undermines the trust required for genuine alliances. The act of lambasting close allies is viewed as exactly what Putin would desire from Trump.
This move is considered a smart way to “slow down the flow to Putin.” It is anticipated that the US will eventually be asked to leave its bases in various locations around the world. Hungary, Slovakia, and the current US administration are all labeled as “Putin’s lapdogs,” with Trump being described as “100% Putin dog.”
The concern extends beyond the potential for sharing intelligence with Russia, encompassing the possibility of sharing it with Trump’s family for profit, or even blurting out sensitive information in interviews. The age-old military adage “loose lips sink ships” is recalled, emphasizing the danger posed by a leader whose “need to show off and impress others” is coupled with a “permanent breakup with the truth.”
The concern is that this is a trend that will continue, and that it will take a significant amount of time to rectify the damage. The fact that this is now being publicly acknowledged, rather than quietly managed, is seen as a telling development. This step, while shocking, is deemed necessary, representing a direct consequence of treating state secrets as campaign talking points.
The idea that this information is “old news” is also present, with the belief that Russia gained an advantage immediately after intelligence was provided to Trump, and that this advantage diminished when intelligence sharing was curtailed. A proposal is made to cease sharing intelligence with the US government whenever a Republican is in office and to restore it when a Democrat is in power.
The Downing Street Memo papers are referenced as an example of historical issues dating back 25 years, suggesting a recurring pattern across Republican administrations this century. The potential destruction of the Five Eyes treaty by Trump’s actions is seen as a dire sign.
Finally, there is a sentiment of exasperation that this realization has not come sooner, with questions like “Are they slow?” and “what were they waiting for?” reflecting a widespread feeling that these protective measures were long overdue.