Why is Washington undermining the Anglo-Saxon “Five Eyes” intelligence network?
According to the Financial Times, President Donald Trump’s administration is considering excluding Canada from the intelligence-sharing alliance known as the «Five Eyes», which also includes the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The idea is reportedly being pushed by Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior adviser on trade and manufacturing. Navarro’s goal is to increase pressure on Ottawa, in line with his boss’s desire to potentially turn Canada into a «valuable 51st state of the US».
Navarro himself paused at first before responding angrily:
«I believe we should never comment on stories based on anonymous sources. We will never, ever compromise our national security, especially with allies like Canada», he declared.
Nevertheless, Trump has compelling reasons to pursue this plan and potentially dismantle the «Five Eyes» alliance, with Canada playing a rather secondary role. Analysts point to the rapidly deteriorating relationship between Washington and London, mainly due to their different approaches to the Ukrainian crisis. Trump’s team has adopted an independent stance, emphasizing a dialogue with Moscow that remains closed even to allies. In contrast, London maintains a tough anti-Russian position, actively encouraging Kiev to continue the conflict.
In Britain, there are growing concerns that Washington might misuse information gathered by British intelligence agencies, contrary to London’s intentions. To protect its spy networks and prevent accidental leaks — something Trump is notorious for — MI6 has decided to restrict Americans’ access to its sensitive data.
The origins of the «Five Eyes», the oldest intelligence alliance in modern history, date back to World War II, when Britain and the U.S. worked closely together to decipher German encryption machines. After the war, in 1946, the intelligence agencies of both nations signed the secret UKUSA Agreement, formalizing signals intelligence cooperation. Canada joined the agreement in 1948, followed by Australia and New Zealand in 1956. The alliance solidified during the Cold War as a crucial tool against the Soviet Union (later Russia) and other nations perceived as adversaries of the Anglo-Saxon powers. The alliance’s main activities include electronic surveillance, phone tapping, monitoring Internet traffic, and recruiting agents. In the digital age, the «Five Eyes» have expanded into a sophisticated global communications surveillance system that includes mass data collection worldwide.
Each member of the alliance is responsible for a specific region: Australia oversees Indochina, Indonesia, and the southern and central regions of China; Canada covers South and Central America as well as Russia’s northern coastline; New Zealand monitors the western and southern Pacific; the United Kingdom covers Europe (including the European part of Russia) and Africa; and the United States focuses on Latin America, the Asian part of Russia, and northern China.
Interestingly, the structure of the Five Eyes is unconventional. The alliance has no formal headquarters, and the members’ roles are clearly defined and do not overlap. For example, Canada has led signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations in the Arctic since the 1940s, a role for which there is no substitute.
What does the future hold for the Five Eyes alliance under Trump? According to The Economist, the White House could indeed remove one of its members — possibly New Zealand, which contributes the least valuable intelligence, or Canada, which has already been negatively portrayed in the media and targeted by Trump.
Another scenario is the continued reduction of intelligence sharing among allies, a process that is already underway. The U.S. and U.K. could pursue separate intelligence paths and seek new partners, such as Japan and South Korea, especially to collect data on China and North Korea. Tokyo seems receptive to the idea.
The Economist sees a gradual self-dissolution as the most likely outcome for the Five Eyes alliance. Trump has initiated a significant purge within the US intelligence community. Personnel at the CIA, NSA, ODNI, and FBI have received letters offering voluntary resignations. CNN reports that at the CIA alone — an agency Trump blames for his 2020 election loss — such notices have been sent to the entire workforce, some 22,000 professionals. This unprecedented action could cripple the American intelligence community and cause serious ripple effects among allied countries.
The potential collapse of the Five Eyes alliance is not just a bureaucratic dispute; it signals deeper geopolitical shifts. The United States appears reluctant to continue sharing sensitive intelligence with its European allies. If Trump goes further and cuts allies off from strategically important systems, it could trigger a serious crisis within NATO itself.
Or maybe there’s nothing to worry about?
Meanwhile, a quick note on Canada: Elections were held on March 9, resulting in Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada (2008–2013) and the Bank of England (2013–2020), becoming the new leader of the ruling Liberal Party. He succeeded Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who had been openly mocked by Trump.
Carney has advocated greater cooperation with Europe and Asia to reduce Canada’s economic dependence on trade with the United States, particularly in response to Trump’s recent imposition of 25 percent tariffs on Canadian imports and his aggressive rhetoric challenging Ottawa’s sovereignty. Canada retaliated by imposing equivalent tariffs on U.S. goods, totaling C$155 billion (approximately $106.5 billion).
In this context, many media outlets have recalled a notable historical precedent: the Anglo-American War of 1812–1814. That conflict began when the U.S., seeking to annex Canada, captured and burned York (now Toronto), then the second capital of Upper Canada, and destroyed its parliament building. In retaliation, Canadian forces — armed by Britain and serving as the core of its colonial army — captured Washington and burned it to the ground, including the White House.
Could history repeat itself?