On Wednesday, April 9th, the British daily newspaper Daily Mail reported on significant frustrations within the MI6 foreign intelligence agency of the Starmer government, citing unnamed sources. The close intelligence cooperation between the “Five Eyes” alliance (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) seems to have failed under Trump and voices within MI6 are reportedly calling for new approaches outside of the Five Eyes alliance.
The reason for the British frustration lies in the unacceptable behavior of the “Trump team” in Washington, according to the Daily Mail. There, President Donald Trump unilaterally decided that the proven allies, including the UK, are no longer allowed to share US-generated intelligence on Russia and its military situation with Kiev. As a result, according to the Daily Mail, forces within the British intelligence agencies are now pushing for a precautionary reduction of the Five Eyes alliance to a Four Eyes alliance, in case the US completely exits the Five Eyes alliance.
In a Four Eyes alliance without the US, one could continue supporting Ukraine and bypass any US vetoes, the argument goes. Regarding further intelligence exchange with Washington, London seems to expect increasing problems. The former British Ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, emphasized the difficulties in maintaining the “particularly close relationship” between the UK and the US under Trump. He highlighted the “pro-Russian tendencies” or the “skepticism towards NATO” among some top officials of the Trump administration, although he most likely had in mind Tulsi Gabbard, the new head of the 18-agency National Intelligence Agency of the US.
However, the alleged British plans to create a Four Eyes alliance are currently nothing more than rumors! It is not even clear if they actually stem from intelligence circles or if interested politicians have allowed the Daily Mail to release a test balloon to see what kind of reactions there would be.
The British government has nevertheless consistently emphasized its deep intelligence ties to the US and its commitment to cooperation within the “Five Eyes.” There are no indications of any plans for a new Four Eyes alliance from an official source.
In fact, implementing a Four Eyes alliance without the US would face significant technical and financial hurdles. Without the immense capabilities of the US in the field of signals intelligence (SIGINT), a Four Eyes alliance would be a dwarf compared to the original with the US.
SIGINT intelligence is mainly conducted by the NSA. Globally, the US dominates with SIGINT resources such as satellite networks, underwater cable eavesdropping nets in seaways, advanced cyber tools and much more, which put the combined capabilities of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the shade. The central problem of a Four Eyes alliance would therefore be the loss of access to this unique information network, which not only offers enormous machine resources but also thousands of technicians, engineers and linguists who form the backbone of the “Five Eyes” insights and analyses.
Replacing the US network within a Four Eyes or Six Eyes alliance, including Germany and France, would require decades and would also involve immense costs. It would not be feasible in the medium or short term.
Moreover, including Germany or France in a Six Eyes alliance would suffer from interoperability issues that do not exist in the current system of the Five Eyes, as the other members are integrated into the US’s technical infrastructure. This would not be the case with Germany and France. Ultimately, excluding the US from a Four Eyes alliance could strain the diplomatic relations between Washington and the other four Anglophone powers and weaken broader military cooperation.
What could London do if the US continues to deny the transfer of the Russian data they provide to Kiev? What options would the British have if the US were to disconnect them from their SIGINT and satellite systems?
London would likely try to intensify and expand its own capacities, where possible in the short term. MI6 and GCHQ could unilaterally intensify their data collection and analysis, although their scope and reach do not match those of the NSA. At the same time, the human and digital capacities of the British for the necessary massive expansion of data collection and analysis are limited and not easily scalable.
Of course, the UK could try to expand its bilateral relations with France (which has also promised support for Ukraine) or other EU partners. However, this is no substitute for the NSA, which, according to a former NSA employee cited in Newsweek on March 6, 2025, provided about 70 percent of the SIGINT intelligence in the Five Eyes alliance.
Another, even weaker option would be if the UK massively purchased data from commercial satellite images. This option would be very expensive and not “real time” (Echtzeit). Moreover, only excerpts from a complete picture of the front line would be delivered.
The net result would be a significant strain on the always-cited, particularly close UK-US relationship. British trust in the US would wane, which could lead allies to take their own paths and develop independent systems or enter into new partnerships.