Current and former European and U.S. officials have raised concerns about some of President Donald Trump’s picks for top intelligence posts
LONDON (AP) — As Russia moved closer to invading Ukraine nearly three years ago, the United States and its allies took the extraordinary step of declassifying and sharing intelligence to expose Moscow’s plans.
Sponsored
It was designed to muster support for Kyiv, and on the strength of the U.S. warning, some nations sent weapons to Ukraine, which moved some equipment out of the range of Russian strikes.
The importance of trust
The U.S. and its allies routinely share top-secret information, be it about potential terror threats, Chinese cyberattacks or Russian troop movements. America's closest intelligence partners are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Britain, and it often shares with other nations or sometimes even adversaries when lives are at stake.
Cooperation particularly between the U.S. and the U.K. is “strong and robust enough to withstand some turbulence at the political level,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, former U.K. national security adviser and current chair of the European Affairs Committee of the upper chamber of the British Parliament.
However, any strong intelligence relationship is underpinned by trust, and what if “trust isn’t there?” Ricketts said.
But when combined with information from its security partners, America's “remarkable intelligence" enabled the NATO alliance to raise the alert about Russia, Lungescu said.
European leaders are working to convince Trump's administration that threats on the continent also are relevant for the United States.
There shouldn't be much debate, said former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Mike McFaul, who said there's a direct relationship between U.S. intelligence sharing and national security. He noted that U.S. authorities have warned of escalating terror threats.
“One of our great advantages is that we have incredible intelligence capabilities and we have allies that we share that with — it’s a force multiplier for us,” said McFaul, who now teaches at Stanford University. “We’ll lose that if we’re no longer considered trustworthy.”
The Trump team has an “open mind and is in a listening mode,” Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said, adding that was a good sign because “when you come in with a new administration in a very eventful, rapidly changing environment, getting on the same footing is a challenge.”
“Last time it didn’t turn out so badly: He was going to throw NATO under the bus, but he didn't do that," former U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said. "The rhetoric turned out to be transactional.”
Spokespeople for the White House and Gabbard did not respond to questions about Trump and his nominees or how they planned to handle intelligence sharing with America’s allies.
“There is a big risk of continuing to take American support for European, NATO countries ... and defense of Ukraine for granted,” said Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson.
But it would also be risky to assume “the U.S. is simply leaving.” On that question, Kristersson said, “the jury is very much out.”
Concerns about Trump's intel picks
Trump’s choice of Gabbard to oversee more than a dozen intelligence agencies has alarmed lawmakers from both parties and many current and former intelligence officials. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who later became a Trump ally, met since-deposed Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2017 in Damascus and has promoted Russian propaganda about its invasion of Ukraine.
If confirmed, Gabbard would have the power to declassify information and direct some intelligence sharing with allies.
A European intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said that while there is concern around some of Trump’s nominations, there is “no reason to think we can’t trust them because of who is in power.”
The official suggested nominees like Gabbard and Patel “haven’t heard all the facts yet” and could “grow and learn” when presented with the full picture.
With thousands of professionals working in a multitude of agencies, the day-to-day operations of America’s spy services may look very similar under the Trump administration. And there are safeguards, current and former officials told the AP, that include agencies sharing intelligence but not sources.
The task for Europe is to convince everybody to focus on Russia, ”the real troublemaker,” the intelligence official said.
Alongside Gabbard, Patel has rattled intelligence insiders in the U.S. and elsewhere because he's criticized surveillance programs like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which U.S. authorities use to keep tabs on suspected spies and terrorists overseas.
The United States shared intelligence gathered through that law with Russia when public safety was at stake, passing along a warning before a deadly concert attack in Moscow in March that killed 145 people. It is not clear if Moscow tried to act on the warning.
Allies heavily depend on US intelligence
The European Union must be realistic that “if the U.S. is reducing its participation in Europe, European members have to be ready to fill any gap,” said former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, who has called for the 27-nation bloc to create its own intelligence agency.
Many global tech and communication firms such as Google, Apple and Microsoft as well as Elon Musk’s X are based in the U.S., giving American law enforcement and spy agencies an advantage over their foreign counterparts, which may lack the political or legal means to obtain information.
Niinistö hosted a summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018, in which Trump openly questioned his own intelligence agencies’ finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election to his benefit, restating Putin’s claim that Moscow was not involved.
Niinistö, whose country borders Russia, described his discussions with Trump while in office as clear, open and frank.
“I tried to tell him: ‘We need you, but you need us, too,’” Niinistö said.
Klepper reported from Washington.
Sponsored