Recently, CBS News reported that Tulsi Gabbard, who is serving as Director of National Intelligence, issued a directive preventing U.S. intelligence agencies from sharing information about Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations with allied intelligence partners.
According to the report, Gabbard signed the memo on July 20. It specifically ordered that details surrounding the negotiations be classified as “NOFORN” (no foreign dissemination), meaning they could not be shared with any foreign governments or nationals—even close allies. The only exception was information already made public.
This decision directly affected the “Five Eyes” alliance, a long-standing intelligence-sharing partnership between the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that dates back to World War II. For more than 80 years, this group has relied on open exchanges to build a shared understanding of global threats.
Some former U.S. officials have expressed concern that Gabbard’s directive could erode trust within the alliance. Sam Vinograd, a former homeland security official and CBS News national security contributor, warned that if close partners believe they are being shut out of critical discussions, they might respond by limiting what they share with the U.S.—or even creating new channels that exclude American input. That, in turn, could weaken collaboration on issues that directly impact U.S. security.
On the other hand, some intelligence veterans have pointed out that such restrictions are not unusual. At times, limiting the circulation of sensitive intelligence is seen as necessary to protect negotiations or prevent leaks.
The debate highlights the tension between safeguarding sensitive talks and maintaining the trust of longstanding allies. While the full impact of this decision remains to be seen, it’s clear that even small shifts in intelligence-sharing policy can ripple across alliances that depend heavily on trust and transparency.
0 Comments