In the Trump era of shifting alliances and growing geopolitical tensions, the intelligence-sharing framework of the Five Eyes is facing a seismic challenge.
Driving the news
- According to a Financial Times report, a proposal by Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to
US President Donald Trump , to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and intelligence circles. The Five Eyes alliance—comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—has been a cornerstone of Western intelligence cooperation since World War II. - The move comes at a time when Trump has openly derided Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, repeatedly referring to him as ‘governor Trudeau’ in a veiled assertion of US dominance over its closest ally. Trump’s vision for Canada—jokingly or not—as America’s “51st state” has intensified with economic pressure, including a fresh wave of 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, set to take effect in March 2025.
- Navarro has denied the report, calling it “crazy stuff,” but the idea is consistent with Trump’s America First approach, which has often questioned traditional alliances. While it remains uncertain whether this proposal will gain traction within the Trump administration, the implications are significant—not just for Canada but also for India, a country with growing intelligence ties to Five Eyes members.
Cracks in the Five Eyes?
- For nearly 80 years, the Five Eyes alliance has been the gold standard for intelligence-sharing among Western nations. Born out of World War II codebreaking cooperation between the US and the UK, the alliance has grown into a sophisticated network coordinating signals intelligence (SIGINT), counterterrorism efforts, and geopolitical monitoring. Expelling Canada—a founding member—would mark an unprecedented rupture, one that intelligence officials warn could embolden adversaries like China and Russia.
- “Sitting where I’m sitting and looking at the array of threats that are coming at us, we need all the partners we can get,” a Five Eyes intelligence official told the FT.
- Former CIA official Dennis Wilder echoed the sentiment, describing the Five Eyes as “by far the most successful intelligence-sharing arrangement in world history.” Disrupting it, he warned, would be “met with cheers from Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang.”
- Yet, within Trump’s MAGA movement, skepticism toward America’s traditional allies is growing. The Trump administration has frequently accused Canada of taking advantage of the US economically and politically, positioning Ottawa as a target for policy changes that reflect Trump’s aggressive trade and national security priorities.
Between the lines
This proposal is not an isolated event but part of Trump’s broader strategy to reshape global alliances based on ideological alignment with his nationalist agenda. The Five Eyes network has been the backbone of Western intelligence for decades, facilitating deep cooperation on signals intelligence (SIGINT), counterterrorism, and cyber threats.
However, Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement has been increasingly skeptical of traditional alliances, particularly those with nations governed by left-leaning leaders. JD Vance, Trump’s vice president, has called Britain “the world’s first truly Islamist country” due to its growing Muslim population, raising further concerns about the administration’s willingness to work with historically close partners. Meanwhile, Australia and New Zealand—both under left-leaning governments—have also seen their strategic importance questioned by Trump’s allies.
India’s calculus
- For India, this shift in US foreign policy presents a mixed bag. On one hand, a weakened Five Eyes could mean less coordination on global intelligence matters, reducing the quality of intelligence India receives. On the other hand, a sidelined Canada might be forced to recalibrate its diplomatic approach towards India.
- Canada has used intelligence from Five Eyes in its accusations against India, most notably in the case of
Hardeep Singh Nijjar , a Khalistani terrorist killed in Canada in 2023. Canadian Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau publicly cited Five Eyes intelligence when accusing India of involvement in the killing—claims New Delhi has vehemently denied. If Canada were removed from the alliance, its access to such intelligence could be curtailed. - From India’s perspective, this could be beneficial. The Five Eyes framework has allowed Canada to access intelligence that it might not be able to gather independently. Without Five Eyes support, Ottawa may find it harder to substantiate allegations against India in future diplomatic disputes. This could lead to a reduction in tensions and a potential recalibration of India-Canada relations, especially after Trudeau steps down on March 9, 2025.
Final thoughts
- The proposal to remove Canada from Five Eyes is more than just a bureaucratic reshuffling—it represents a fundamental shift in the way alliances are structured under Trump’s vision of US foreign policy.
- The move signals a more transactional US approach to alliances, one that prioritizes short-term leverage over long-term strategic cooperation. If intelligence-sharing becomes a tool for economic and political coercion, many other countries may need to rethink their reliance on US-led security frameworks.
- The US is by far the largest contributor to Five Eyes intelligence, and any fragmentation within the alliance could undermine coordinated intelligence efforts on issues like cyber threats, counterterrorism, and China’s military movements in the Indo-Pacific.
- There are risks for India as well. A weakened Five Eyes could mean less effective intelligence cooperation between India and its key partners like the US and UK. New Delhi has been working toward closer intelligence collaboration with Five Eyes members, with discussions in recent years about potentially expanding the alliance to include India, Japan, and South Korea. If Five Eyes fractures, it could derail these efforts and weaken India’s intelligence-gathering capabilities.
(With inputs from agencies)