LONDON — Britons must accept the trade-offs of a closer relationship with the European Union, the U.K. prime minister said Monday. At a speech in central London, Keir Starmer said Brexit had “significantly hurt our economy,” warning “frictions” with the bloc must be reduced to enable “economic renewal” in the U.K. It comes days after talks between London and Brussels to allow Britain to participate in the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe loans-for-weapons program broke down, amid a disagreement over how much the U.K. would have to pay to participate. In his Monday morning speech, Starmer gave a staunch defense of last week’s budget, insisting he does have a long-term economic plan for the U.K. “The most important things that we can do for growth and business is first, drive inflation down and second, to retain market confidence that allows for recall economic stability,” he said. But the U.K. must “confront the reality” that the deal struck with Brussels post-Brexit “significantly hurt our economy, he said. “For economic renewal we have to keep reducing frictions. We have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU, and we have to be grown-up about that, to accept that that will require trade-offs.” He later cited a proposed SPS deal, which aims to remove the need for border checks on plant and animal products, and talks on an emission trading scheme as examples of where the U.K. is making progress. Starmer’s speech came as the embattled British prime minister tried to defend last week’s tax-hiking government budget. He insisted the choices made the tax-and-spend statement had been “fair, necessary and fundamentally good for growth,” but acknowledged publicly for the first time that ministers had considered — and then backed away from — a manifesto-busting rise in the headline rate of income tax.

LONDON — The U.K. must face up to hard truths on defense — just don’t ask it to look too closely at the special relationship with America. Westminster is braced for the impact of the government’s latest “strategic defense review” — a major piece of work attempting to identify the biggest threats facing the U.K. and how to meet them.  The report is expected to devote more than £1 billion to technology for quicker strategic decisions, as well as distilling the military lessons of the war in Ukraine. But when it comes to defining Britain’s place in the world, the task for the review’s authors — led by former NATO Secretary-General and Labour peer George Robertson — is a far harder one. The review will have to address the implications of Donald Trump’s message that he wants to pull back from the United States’ role in defending Europe — an uncomfortable shift in a relationship long seen as a cornerstone of British security.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Defence Secretary John Healey and the wider British military establishment have consistently sought to emphasize the strength of the transatlantic partnership under Trump, refusing to engage with suggestions that the U.K.’s security calculation might be changing. But some members of parliament and analysts are already warning this represents a dangerous blind spot for the U.K. government, which there seems to be little appetite to address. “I’m afraid the top brass never went to see ‘Love Actually,’” said Nick Witney, former head of the European Defence Agency — a reference to the 2003 rom-com where a U.K. prime minister stands up to the U.S. president.  THE DILEMMA While reviews of recent years dwelt on “Global Britain” and the “Indo-Pacific tilt,” the latest version was always likely to see a sharp swerve back toward Europe, necessitated by the harsh reality of war in Ukraine.  Starmer’s government acknowledged this from the outset, stating that the review should take a “NATO first” approach.  Yet the sands have shifted again since the SDR was launched last summer, with the return of Trump and his pivot away from protecting Europe. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of defense think tank the Royal United Services Institute, argues this will mean a reevaluation of the priority given to the U.K.’s European alliances “in order to hedge against the probability of at least some American withdrawal, and the possibility of something much more radical.” To make matters harder, it’s difficult to judge just how far Trump will resile from the United States’ traditional burdens — from a slight shift in the orthodoxy to a radical change of focus, for example toward containing Iran. Fiona Hill, a former adviser to the president on Russia, recently warned of “a genuine rupture in the relationship between the U.S. and its allies.” | Michael Reynolds/EPA Patrick Porter, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, said: “Whatever it is, it’s significantly different from what we had for generations. You would have had this even without Trump, but he has accelerated things.” At least one of the SDR’s authors seems well placed to assess the threat from Trump’s change of direction. Fiona Hill, a former adviser to the president on Russia, recently warned of “a genuine rupture in the relationship between the U.S. and its allies.” Nonetheless, Porter predicted: “I think what you’re going to get is a very untidy mix of recognizing changed circumstances while clinging on to the old world order.”  WHAT ARE THE PINCH POINTS? The U.K. is heavily reliant on the U.S. for several key aspects of its defense network, including intelligence-sharing, the nuclear deterrent and F-35 fighter planes. Mike Martin, a Liberal Democrat MP and former army officer, called for a rethink of the intelligence the U.K. shares with America in the wake of the Signalgate scandal, saying: “When you share intelligence you obviously want to know if these people are trustworthy.” A second MP working on defense matters, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that when it comes to reducing Britain’s dependence on the U.S., “we should be asking ourselves, publicly and privately, what does that look like.” That view is seldom reflected, even in private, by ministers or officials, as they stick religiously to the line that there is nothing contradictory in the U.K. and U.S.’s calculations about their own defense. U.K. Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson argued in a speech last week that Trump “is doing Europe a favor by confronting us” with the notion that “we must become less dependent on America while remaining inseparably linked to America.” There seems to be little signal that Britain’s public assessment of its relationship with America will change as it tries desperately to keep Trump in the room for peace talks on Ukraine. FUTURE RISKS Trump’s cooling on U.S. involvement in Europe presents an additional strategic risk for NATO allies. Witney, currently a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said there is a lack of direction when it comes to identifying where Western countries need to beef up key capabilities. “With the Americans having one foot out of the door, everybody is saying ‘we must take more responsibility’ but there just is no forum,” he argued. “It’s very hard to see where the sensible, collaborative, pooled efforts can come from if we haven’t even got a way of working out together where our priorities lie.” Donald Trump’s cooling on U.S. involvement in Europe presents an additional strategic risk for NATO allies. | Pool photo by Francis Chung via EPA While a host of European countries including the U.K. have announced a boost to defense spending, it may be easier to raise the overall envelope than to take coordinated decisions on where to actually direct it. Joint initiatives have been in short supply beyond the European Long-Range Strike Approach — and U.K. access to an EU defense fund is out of reach for now. If this remains the case, the U.K. and its continental allies may struggle to meet the challenge that underpins the entire SDR: how to protect against Russian aggression in a world where America is moving on.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will be happy with his haul from Monday’s Brexit summit. But EU fishermen will be even happier. The British prime minister used Monday’s EU-U.K. Brexit summit to offer major concessions on EU access to U.K. fishing waters — in exchange for a host of favorable terms he’s betting tired voters will thank him for. Ahead of the gathering at London’s swish Lancaster House — billed as hitting reset on years of post-Brexit bad blood — Brussels was widely thought to be seeking a 10-year extension to the generous fishing rights its fleets already enjoy in U.K. waters under Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. London offered up four. And in the end, they settled on 12. The giveaway, pounced on by critics, is a political gamble for Starmer, who appears to be trading a hit to a relatively small by symbolic part of the U.K. economy for wins elsewhere. The decision immediately gave euroskeptics like Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage and embattled Tory chief Kemi Badenoch a clear line of attack. Farage declared the agreement “the end of the fishing industry” while Badenoch branded it a “sell-out.” Euroskeptic parts of the British press are already following their lead, and even Johnson himself re-emerged to rubbish it in colorful terms. While downplaying the idea that fishing communities will be severely hit, and offering up both some fresh investment and an easing of food checks as a sweetener, Starmer is hoping his wins in other policy areas will catch Brits’ attention. In getting the green light for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and re-entry into the internal electricity market, the U.K. has effectively been allowed to break one of Brussels’ cardinal Brexit rules: no “cherry-picking.” Sure, London has sign up to EU rules and listen to European Court of Justice judgments on those topics. But Brussels has until now been very clear that sector-by-sector participation in parts of the single market was not on the table. Several million tons of fish clearly helped change their minds. TRANSPARENT RE-BRAND The fish probably also appear to have helped get the deal over the line without too much fuss on another tricky area for Starmer: youth mobility. At various points in the last year Brussels has looked ready to sink the reset entirely over visas allowing young people to live and work in the U.K. and vice versa, which it regards as a priority. Keir Starmer long said he had no plans to agree any such scheme — fearing it smelled too much like EU free movement and was politically difficult. | Pool photo by Jason Alden/EFE via EPA Starmer long said he had no plans to agree any such scheme — fearing it smelled too much like EU free movement and was politically difficult. In recent weeks he has softened his stance to get the wider deal over the line. But while the policy, transparently rebranded as a “youth experience” scheme, is in the negotiating roadmap agreed at the summit, the wording is somewhat minimalist and various parts of the EU’s original plan are missing. The agreed text states that the scheme will be time-limited and “on terms to be mutually agreed”. There is no mention of lower tuition fees or how long the time-limit would be. One EU diplomat described the policy as a “work-in-progress.” Starmer insisted at his press conference closing the summit that the youth scheme would have a cap on numbers. In fact, the agreement only says that both sides will “ensure that the overall number of participants is acceptable to both sides,” which is a little different. There are some other devils in the detail, too. At the same media briefing, Starmer made a big deal about Brits being allowed to use EU passport gates. In reality, it’ll be up to individual EU member states to decide that. Some have shown no inclination to fill their express lanes with holidaying Brits. LOOKING AHEAD Some of the more politically difficult negotiations have been kicked into the future, too. Youth mobility need not have been so politically fraught for Starmer. The U.K. has signed similar arrangements with a dozen countries from Uruguay to Japan without incident. In reality it is just a visa and nothing like freedom of movement. But in ruling it out for so long and agonizing about its political meaning, Downing Street has arguably made the scheme a flashpoint. This was always a curious choice when Brussels was so insistent on the policy — and it may come back to bite them. Farage will certainly be gnashing its teeth when the details are agreed. There are other tricky topics ahead, too. The agreement, Erasmus+ association, and British participation in EU’s SAFE defense fund all sound relatively unconventional. But all are likely to require the British government to open its wallet and make financial contributions — which collectively could prompt accusations of another “sell-out.” For now though, Starmer can enjoy his cherry-picking — and Brussels can enjoy its fish.

LONDON — The British economy needs a “labor shortage” in order get people off their “backsides” and into jobs, Reform UK’s deputy leader said Thursday. In an interview with POLITICO ahead of next week’s much-hyped EU-U.K. reset summit, Richard Tice rubbished the idea of greater youth mobility between the bloc and the U.K. — and warned of a “sell out” of British interests by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  The comments come as Reform UK, led by Brexiteer Nigel Farage, tries to turn up the heat on Starmer over migration after coming top in local elections. “I want there to be a labor shortage, because that’s the way to getting productivity improvements,” Tice said. “That’s the way to get wage growth for the least well-off and that’s the way to get millions of people off benefits and back into work.” For Tice, any youth mobility deal — a key EU objective in upcoming talks — would open “a backdoor to the freedom of movement.” Britain’s Labour government has repeatedly stressed that a return to European free movement post-Brexit is a red line in any talks with Brussels. Mindful of being accused of unpicking Brexit, it has similarly ruled out pushing a return to the customs union or single market. But Tice said of youth mobility: “You will have lots of young people from Eastern Europe, Bulgaria and Romania, pouring into the U.K. and then finding reasons to stay here or overstay their visas. This is the thin end of opening to [EU] freedom of movement.”  Despite concerns that Britain could face acute labor shortages in sectors like healthcare and hospitality, Tice called his approach “carrot and stick” — arguing that worker shortages would force wages up and thereby encourage more participation in the workforce.  “We want a world leading-benefit system,” he said. “But if you think you can make a lifestyle choice to sit on your backside and watch telly all day, forget it.”  NO DEAL UNTIL BOATS STOP Elsewhere in his interview, the deputy Reform boss dismissed the idea of reopening negotiations with Brussels entirely until France “carries out their legal obligation” to stop small boats carrying irregular migrants across the English Channel.  Britain signed an agreement with France in February to toughen up action on illegal migrant crossings, but Tice said of the summit: “There’s nothing to talk about until France carry out their legal obligation to pick up the boats and take them back to France. When they do that, we can talk about stuff. Until they do that, forget it.” The summit arrives at a politically-charged moment for Starmer, who is facing domestic pressure to curb both legal and illegal immigration. The government recently unveiled a crackdown on overseas recruitment and graduate visas, just days after voters turned to Reform UK in the local elections.  Reform, however, spies an opportunity in public anger about immigration.  “I don’t think this place has any idea about their fury and rage,” he said. “With these local elections — be under no illusion — no one was talking about potholes or bins. All they were talking about on every door was immigration.”

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron has accepted an invitation for a formal state visit to the United Kingdom to meet with Britain’s King Charles III. Macron’s office said that the trip, which will also include a summit between the French leader and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, will take place from July 8 to 10. Such meetings used to be an annual ritual, but were suspended during the acrimonious Brexit negotiations. The Elysée Palace said in a statement that the visit “will show the depth of the ties that unite our two countries and our two people.” With the war raging in Ukraine and European security a concern amid threats from Russia, it’s expected the summit will focus on defense and security, an area where the French and the British have in the past worked together closely. Ties between France and the United Kingdom have improved since the frosty days of tense Brexit negotiations, which concluded with a deal in 2020. Starmer’s effort to reset relations with the bloc have helped further thaw London’s relationships with both Brussels and Paris. The visit will also be an opportunity to address some thorny issues that divide the two countries. France has been playing hardball on reset talks between the EU and the U.K. — Paris wants London to commit to extending fishing rights for EU trawlers in British waters beyond a looming deadline next year.

PARIS — The French have long had a habit of annoying the British. Lately they’ve been digging their heels in over concessions they want Prime Minister Keir Starmer to accept in return for his hoped-for reset with the EU.  From defense to fisheries, France’s diplomats have been playing hardball, according to officials from both sides. So while governments are optimistic that Britain and Europe can rekindle some kind of relationship in the wake of Donald Trump’s less-than-subtle attempt to turn his back on them, it’s certainly not turning out to be a painless process. Just as Paris played bad cop during the negotiations over the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU and subsequent trade deal between 2016 and 2020, it’s putting in a repeat performance now the Brits want to get closer again, with a crucial London summit less than two weeks away. “The French have stayed very much on the position that there shouldn’t be any advantages given to the British after Brexit,” said François-Joseph Schichan, a former French diplomat and director at advisory firm Flint Global.   In fact, some of the same issues that caused such a headache for the two sides during the divorce are rearing their heads again, according to diplomats from both sides who, like others quoted in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak frankly about talks behind closed doors. France, for example, wants to limit British access to a €150 billion European rearmament defense fund that is being negotiated. It also wants to secure access to British waters for EU fishing fleets ahead of a deadline next year. In Paris, French officials are optimistic that their lobbying will pay off on the arms purchasing issue, but they remain tight-lipped regarding any fisheries deal. FARAGE LOOMS LARGE European and British negotiators have this week been locked in another round of intensive talks to strike a three-part pact that includes a political declaration, a defense pact and a third section on other areas of cooperation. A landmark summit between the two sides is planned for London on May 19.  In the last few months, the warming relations have seen Starmer hosting and being invited to leader-level discussions on Ukraine and U.K. ministers participating in EU meetings. The most recent of these was Wednesday’s gathering of EU foreign ministers in Poland attended by Foreign Secretary David Lammy. “We are working hand-in-hand with our European allies to build a safer, more secure, and more prosperous Europe,” Lammy said. But a lot can still go wrong, not least because Starmer is under increased pressure following big wins by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in local elections last week. Farage was one of the most vocal supporters of Brexit and is railing against any government attempt to push the U.K. back into the European fold. With uncertainty hovering over the future of the NATO alliance under Trump, and Washington threatening to walk away from difficult ceasefire negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, European officials want to land a security deal with the U.K., an allied nuclear power that has a seat on the United Nations Security Council.  The most recent of these was Wednesday’s gathering of EU foreign ministers in Poland attended by Foreign Secretary David Lammy. | Marcin Obara/EPA In Paris, however, the urgency to lock arms with the British is tempered by a desire to use the moment to address the bad blood left over from Brexit. The French are keen in principle on a security alliance with the U.K., but are worried that a bigger deal leaves them open to being blindsided later on more controversial issues, such as access to British waters for EU trawlers. Under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, signed in 2020, European fleets have certain fishing rights and quotas in British waters, but those expire in 2026. France, Denmark and the Netherlands want that access extended.  And while Paris doesn’t want to trade guns for fish, it’s clear France is pushing to secure fishing rights as a prerequisite to a closer defense partnership.  “You can’t negotiate security [and] defense one year, and the next year be fighting over mackerel quotas,” a French official said. FRENCH ISOLATION The defense dispute boils down to money. The U.K. wants its firms to benefit from SAFE, the multibillion-euro rearmament program that is currently being negotiated by EU members, but France sees that effort as unwelcome competition from London and a case of the Brits trying to have their post-Brexit cake and eat it too. Some EU member countries such as Germany and those in Eastern Europe under greater threat from Russia have bristled at what they regard as French intransigence. One non-French EU diplomat said that France had started “to feel isolated” as it resisted making SAFE more accessible to the British. The mood in France is currently trending toward “including the British, but with strict conditions.” One option being floated is making the U.K. a fee-paying participant in SAFE, according to an official from Renew Europe, which includes French President Emmanuel Macron’s centrists. “I think the French reluctance on this issue was more an initial negotiating position, because the French defense industry doesn’t want rivals, and there’ll be an impact on jobs locally,” the official said. OLD HABITS DIE HARD  The disagreement boils down to a difference in post-Brexit mindsets between Paris and London. Britain still sees Brussels as a close partner despite leaving the EU, but French confidence in the U.K. remains shaken. And while Britain believes the “special relationship” with the U.S. is salvageable, Europe has come to terms with its breakup with America under Trump. That, and British efforts to secure a trade deal with Washington, have reinforced the French view that the reset with Starmer will be relatively limited and that the U.K. doesn’t see its future as lying exclusively with the continent. Nigel Farage was one of the most vocal supporters of Brexit and is railing against any government attempt to push the U.K. back into the European fold. | Adam Vaughan/EPA In the end, France’s role in the reset might come down to a cold political calculus. Macron needs Starmer if he hopes to achieve anything on Ukraine, and foreign policy is one of the few areas that can burnish his public image amid France’s domestic political gridlock. “If France and the U.K don’t work together, nothing will happen,” said Schichan, the former diplomat. “If Macron wants results, he needs to be aligned [with London].” Gregorio Sorgi and Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

LONDON — Brexit Britain is to remain a safe haven for sand eels after EU legal action to reverse a ban on catching the snakey fish failed. The U.K. government beefed up its marine environmental protections after leaving the EU — enraging continental fishermen and prompting a legal challenge last year. But the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on Friday ruled that the U.K.’s ban was based on the best available science and did not discriminate against EU fishers. However, it also ruled that the U.K. had made a procedural error in bringing in the ban by not giving due regard to the rights of EU fishers during an adjustment period — as required under the Brexit trade deal. The fish are fed to livestock by farmers in countries like Denmark, but are also the favored food of baby seabirds. Conservationists have long pushed for the ban on fishing the stock in a bid to give the endangered birds a break — and a chance at arresting their falling numbers. A U.K. government spokesperson said the judgment “does not mean the U.K. is legally obliged to reverse the closure” and that it would now “undertake a process in good faith to bring the U.K. into compliance on the specific issues raised by the Tribunal.” “We remain committed to protecting our seabirds and the wider marine environment, in accordance with our commitments to the TCA [the U.K.-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement] and other international agreements,” they added. A European Commission spokesperson told reporters on Friday afternoon that the bloc’s executive was “still analyzing this ruling.” Beccy Speight, the chief executive of Britain’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said she was “absolutely delighted the panel has found the ecological case for the closure of industrial sand eel fishing is sound.” “We now expect the U.K. government and the EU to move forward and make this closure permanent. Safeguarding sand eel stocks is a key part of the jigsaw that will help set our puffins, kittiwakes and the wider marine environment on the path to recovery.” Ben Reynolds, director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy think tank, said the judgment was “welcome news for the environment,” adding that the case was “one of only a handful of issues where the U.K. has used its post-Brexit powers to go further than the EU on tightening up protection of the environment.” The judgment comes as EU and U.K. negotiators are locked in talks about how to improve the post-Brexit cross-Channel relationship. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer will host EU chiefs in London on May 19 to confirm progress.

LONDON — Ursula von der Leyen will meet Keir Starmer in London next week as the U.K. and the EU prepare to discuss closer energy ties as part of a wider Brexit “reset.” The two leaders will meet on Thursday, according to von der Leyen’s official schedule, and the European Commission president will also attend a London summit on the future of energy security, co-hosted by the U.K. government and the International Energy Agency. Energy has become a key target for deeper post-Brexit cooperation between the U.K. and the EU. At a separate summit in May the two sides are expected to discuss the topic alongside defense, security, and fisheries. U.K. ministers view next week’s two-day summit as an opportunity to showcase the Labour government’s commitment to its net zero climate goal, and its belief that phasing out fossil fuels and investing in renewables like wind and solar can forge a path to energy security. Von der Leyen is the most senior guest so far confirmed to be attending. The event, hosted by U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol, will be attended by energy ministers from IEA member countries. That includes the U.S., which has taken a starkly different path on energy policy under Donald Trump, withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and seeking to leverage its vast fossil fuel resources to secure trade concessions from the European Union. The U.S. withdrawal from global climate efforts has also placed more emphasis on British and EU cooperation around the energy transition. Von der Leyen’s visit also comes as the U.K. and the EU explore closer ties in electricity trading, with current post-Brexit arrangements due to expire in June 2026. Energy companies on both sides of the channel say the current system is poor and want Brussels and London to agree to closer integration resembling the single market. Clean energy companies are also seeking alignment between the U.K. and the EU’s carbon emissions trading schemes and carbon border taxes.  

British Chancellor Rachel Reeves heads to her second meeting of European Union finance ministers Friday, where she’ll tell her bloc counterparts that deeper defense financing cooperation is needed “in a changing world.” Reeves is in Warsaw, Poland, where EU finance ministers are meeting under the banner of Ecofin, organized by the Polish finance ministry. Poland currently holds the EU’s six-monthly rotating council presidency, so invited Reeves directly. Against an unspoken backdrop of Donald Trump’s push away from Europe, Reeves will tell her counterparts that the U.K. and EU need to work together on defense funding to provide greater economic and national security. They are likely to discuss the re-arming fund proposed by Brussels, which would see a €150 billion loan program for EU governments to spend on weapons and equipment. In order for the U.K. to be involved in the scheme, it needs a formal defense agreement with Brussels — something held up by a dispute about fishing quotas, among other issues. POLITICO reported last week that the U.K. Treasury has pitched a plan that would allow participating governments to avoid booking the upfront capital cost of military kit in their national budget, which would be of huge benefit to countries with tight spending rules. British officials met select European allies at a discreet dinner in Brussels a couple of weeks ago to discuss plans for the new defense fund. This gathering was also hosted by Poland. “A strong economy needs a strong national defense. That is why the chancellor will be travelling to Warsaw to make the case for deeper defence financing cooperation with our European allies so together we deliver greater economic and national security in a changed world,” a Treasury official said in a statement accompanying the trip. PM Keir Starmer recently upped Britain’s defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP, the biggest increase since the end of the Cold War. The U.K. has spent the past few weeks pressing for a carve-out from Trump’s tariffs. Friday’s trip signals a renewed focus on the government’s pledge to reset U.K.-EU relations ahead of a wider summit May 19.

LONDON — The U.K.’s special relationship with the United States has been stretched on several fronts by President Donald Trump’s new administration, but many in the national security community considered the last bastion to be the countries’ approach to intelligence. Recently, however, substantial cracks have begun to appear even there. First, Trump ordered last month that American intelligence not be shared with Ukraine, either by its own spy agencies or by other countries in the Five Eyes security alliance. Then, U.S. national security adviser Michael Waltz inadvertently added a journalist to a conversation on the encrypted messaging app Signal that openly discussed American military action in Yemen, in an eye-opening insight into how lax current officials are with state secrets. While Trump’s decision on intelligence-sharing with Ukraine was condemned by Kyiv’s allies around Europe, Britain did not retaliate, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson stressing that Britain’s relationship with the U.S. “on defense, security and intelligence remains inextricably entwined.” The links between Britain and America’s intelligence networks go so deep that it may be impossible to untangle them, or to replicate the U.S. contribution, according to current and former intelligence officials who have worked across the regions and were granted anonymity to speak candidly to POLITICO about areas of national security. But the experts say that despite the intricate nature of the relationship, it may be necessary for Britain to begin planning for the previously unthinkable if Trump’s America continues to depart from its oldest alliances and once-shared international aims. EYES Britain’s status as a comparative heavyweight in the intelligence sphere goes back decades, having been formalized in the establishment of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance of the U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand following World War II.  In the years since, the vast scale of joint operations and surveillance went largely unreported until NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked over 1.5 million classified documents in 2013 and unearthed the alliance’s work across the globe. Five Eyes survived the leaks, but they revealed “a lot of the capabilities and access” of the alliance, changing the way intelligence was collected and how some tech companies behaved toward governments, according to one former senior U.K. intelligence official. There has been a relative decline over the last few decades in the gathering of human intelligence — often referred to as HUMINT, which broadly covers agents and assets run by the FBI and CIA in the U.S. and MI5 and MI6 in the U.K. But that drop has been matched by a meteoric rise in its digital cousin, signals intelligence — named SIGINT, covered by the work of Britain’s GCHQ and America’s NSA. The automated bulk sharing of this digital intelligence has become more important given that human intelligence “doesn’t scale in the same way,” the same former intelligence source said. “That is deeply, deeply integrated, and it’s deeply disruptive to disentangle that,” they added. EARS Britain still has important assets that are of use to America — chief among them its listening posts. These are military and intelligence facilities, often overseas, used to monitor communications. The details of listening posts are sometimes classified, with their locations, capabilities or which nations they monitor kept secret for national security reasons. The links between Britain and America’s intelligence networks go so deep that it may be impossible to untangle them. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images But the crucial data they collect makes it unlikely the U.S. would ever leave Five Eyes, according to Neil Melvin , director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a defense and security think tank. “For example, the one in Cyprus [Ayios Nikolaos] — the U.S. relies on that for the East Mediterranean, which is very important because of Israel,” he pointed out. If the U.S. left the alliance, “they would also have to replace some very expensive assets that the U.K. has,” as well as U.S. signals and intelligence bases located in Britain, such as RAF Menwith Hill in Yorkshire — referred to by locals as “the golf balls.” One figure in the U.K. intelligence community now working in the private sector said that listening posts are best understood as “hoovering up huge amounts of raw data” such as internet, telephone and radio traffic, and then “picking through it using machine learning or AI to pick up the signal from the noise” — such as key words, voices or addresses. “Only after that sifting does it really ever get in front of the eyes of a human being,” they added.  A former U.K. government security official added that responsibilities for monitoring are shared by Britain and America, which means the intelligence is also shared. “One day or one week it will be the U.K.’s turn, the next time it will be the U.S.’s,” they said. A separate former senior U.K. intelligence official who has worked closely with American counterparts noted that the signals intelligence community is particularly well integrated in Five Eyes. “Some are using U.S. equipment manned by Brits, some are the other way around; the same with Australia and Canada,” they said, adding: “You’ll find Americans working at GCHQ and Brits working in NSA.” ‘SOMEDAY, MAYBE THEY’RE NOT OUR ALLIES, RIGHT?’ Recent events have reminded U.S. allies that its intelligence capabilities can’t be matched. The U.S. intelligence-sharing ban for Ukraine had a material impact on its ability to fight Russia, most notably with its use of U.S. technology that needed American intelligence and input to properly function. The Trump administration’s decision to suspend Ukraine’s access to commercial satellite imagery used by the U.S. government was a “quite worrying” development, according to the same former senior U.K. intelligence official, who added: “That should be a bit of a shock to the system, but everyone seems to have ignored it.” While the U.K. can help analyze imagery the U.S. collects from space, it doesn’t have the capability to collect it itself, the official said. And any sharing from the U.S. “can, of course, also be turned on or turned off.” Concerns about the implications of falling out of America’s good graces are echoed in long-running fears that it has the ability to hamper the effectiveness of the F-35 jets sold to allies, including the U.K., through some form of “kill switch.” Those fears were exacerbated by Trump’s comments when announcing the contract for America’s next-generation F-47 aircraft. When sold to allies, he said, the jet’s capabilities might be toned down by “about 10 percent,” as “someday, maybe they’re not our allies, right?”  Downing Street was approached by POLITICO for comment. BUYING UP BRITAIN Many of Britain’s security and defense innovations have been funded by the United States, providing support for the development of “dual-use” technology — with civilian and military applications — for America and its Five Eyes allies.  “If the U.S. wants something of the U.K.’s invention these days, it simply buys it,” said one former British intelligence official, adding that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — the U.S. government agency that helped push through technological advances like GPS and the Internet — funds and commissions U.K. universities directly. Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites help provide internet access for rural parts of Britain, and the Ministry of Defense has contracts with American defense-tech startup Anduril. | Vincent Feuray and Hans Lucas via Getty Images In-Q-Tel, an American company that effectively operates as a venture capital firm for the CIA, has been an early-stage funder in at least 29 investments in various British tech and defense companies. Reportedly named after the spy gadgetmaster “Q” from James Bond, it aims to identify new commercial technology that could contribute to the national security of the U.S., the U.K., Australia and its allies. POLITICO has identified at least 15 of these investments, which range from manufacturers of drones or electronics made from graphene — a carbon-based material 200 times stronger than steel — to artificial intelligence solutions and marine robotics. While the U.K. has seen some of its homegrown talent snapped up by the might of American capital — most recently with last year’s $5.3 billion acquisition of Darktrace, once the darling of the British tech scene — there are some safeguards to keep technology protected, even from allies. In February, the government gave security clearance for U.S. engineering group ESCO Maritime Solutions to buy out British naval defense supplier Ultra PMES Limited. This came with caveats, such as appointing a British government director and chief security officer, and retaining powers to compel the companies to support the U.K.’s defense and security if required. However, the integration of U.S. companies into Britain’s defense, intelligence and civilian infrastructure is substantial, sometimes without similar publicly declared protections. Palantir, a data analytics company that was one of In-Q-Tel’s most successful early investments, has contracts in Britain including with central government data, the NHS, the armed forces and the police. Other vast U.S. companies are similarly embedded. For example, Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites help provide internet access for rural parts of Britain, and the Ministry of Defense has contracts with American defense-tech startup Anduril. “The intelligence services use Palantir,” said the same former intelligence official, adding that GCHQ in 2021 struck a deal with Amazon for the storage of its data on the cloud “because it considered that they would be as secure as anything, and would be cheaper to do it.” Britain for decades thought that embedding American tech was a “very clever collaboration,” they said, because the relationship between the two countries was a “permanent one that we could rely on, and was a more effective one than relying on the EU, which has a variety of strings attached to it. We were wrong.” While the access of American companies to Britain is nothing new, the hyper-political nature of the current crop of tech billionaires with ties to Trump’s White House has caused disquiet in some parts of the country’s intelligence community. Musk’s interest in influencing British and European politics has been explicit, and Palantir founder Peter Thiel — who helped fund and mentor Vice President JD Vance — is also “obviously highly ideological,” said one figure in the U.K. intelligence community now working in the private sector. “Musk and Thiel, Starlink, Palantir, Anduril, anything like that, in my view, really needs to be purged from our systems no matter the cost, because you’ve got an oligarchic, authoritarian system emerging and those people are right in the middle of it.” PREPARE FOR THE WORST Those who have seen the special relationship up close on intelligence are split as to what has to be done, with most agreeing the most concerning moves come from America’s softening stance toward Russia. Even with Britain’s slight improvement of relations with Europe under Keir Starmer, it would take time to build the same type of understanding and shared practices it has with the U.S. with anyone else. | Pool Photo by Ben Stansall via Getty Images “They voted with Russia, Iran, North Korea and China on Ukraine in the United Nations — it’s just unthinkable a year ago,” said the intelligence figure working in the private sector. RUSI’s Melvin told POLITICO that the cessation of intelligence sharing with Ukraine had been a “flashing amber light” to U.S. intelligence partners. “We’re not yet in a crisis, but there is a new level of caution in the relationship.” But the stance of the British government has been, broadly, not to criticize Trump. “There’s still a significant resistance in Whitehall, particularly, to being prepared to discuss the fact that the trust in the U.S. has gone,” said one former senior intelligence official. “Some are hoping that it can be gotten back, and that they can limit the damage and it won’t really happen, not understanding that it already has happened.” “You have to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst,” another former senior intelligence official said, with future possibilities including a U.S. withdrawal from NATO and its “descent into unreliability as an ally.” However, they added, the Five Eyes relationship is so “deeply embedded and differently governed” that it will be “the last thing of the transatlantic relationship to unravel,” as it is run by “professional intelligence heads, not by politicians.” “You can’t kick America out of Five Eyes,” they said. “It’d be like kicking England out of the United Kingdom — it doesn’t work, the whole concept falls apart.” Others are more bullish about Britain’s prospects, with one former U.K. minister involved in security telling POLITICO: “America doesn’t hold all the cards, and I saw this during my time in government: Our people have been so conditioned by this sense of America’s power, we gave up flexing our own muscles with them so long ago. “I had to remind people that it is a partnership, not a subservient relationship. There’s no need to redefine it or untangle it, we just need to assert ourselves as an equal partner.” ‘TRUST ARRIVES ON FOOT‘ As with its position in NATO, America’s enduring place in the intelligence community has been in large part due to the monetary and technological might it contributes. “On rough orders of magnitude for Five Eyes, if you worked off the idea that the U.S. puts in the same in terms of overall resources as the other four of the five eyes combined, you wouldn’t be far wrong,” said one former intelligence official who has worked closely with America. Several former intelligence officials said that such a close, trusting relationship with an ally would be the most difficult thing for Britain to replace were America to withdraw from the intelligence relationship. Even with Britain’s slight improvement of relations with Europe under Starmer, it would take time to build the same type of understanding and shared practices it has with the U.S. with anyone else. Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s insistence this month that the U.S. is as “active in NATO as it has ever been,” recent moves have shown this may not always be the case. | Omar Havana/Getty Images For example, Melvin noted that though the U.K.-France relationship is strong, there is not the same level of trust on sharing intelligence. Similarly, he added that Japan has for years been unable to get up to an adequate level of “intelligence hygiene” in its security apparatus, despite talk of its becoming a sixth member of Five Eyes. But the potential departure of Trump’s America from the standard international order does provide the U.K. with an opportunity to step into the leadership role. And although it cannot match America’s financial clout, the U.K. still carries some of the respect in Europe that America is quickly losing. “All across the Nordic and East European countries, the American reputation is gone. The old NATO has gone — it’s not going, it’s gone,” said one former intelligence official who worked with NATO allies. “In the eyes of the numerical majority of NATO countries, the U.K. is the only country that could replace America.” “Trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback,” the official added. “It will take a long time to rebuild it.” “That doesn’t mean that NATO as an institution is dead or worthless; quite the contrary,” they said, “but the old NATO structure, which was based in trust on the U.S. coming to bail out Europe in event of a disastrous attack by the Russians, now has no credibility.” Britain’s scramble to put together a “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine, with NATO at the heart of discussions, despite the threats from Vladimir Putin, shows that Starmer and his Defense Secretary John Healey understand its value as an institution, the former official said. NATO’s main value lies in its creation of space, both literal and figurative, for countries to exchange intelligence and confidences, they said. “The EU has got nothing like this at all, and NATO does it — not just with its members, but with its partners, which include Japan and Australia. NATO is actually already a global organization, it just needs to formalize it.” The U.K. is already working to strengthen ties within NATO, leading almost weekly summits with France over Ukraine’s future and the future of Europe’s defense capabilities. Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s insistence this month that the U.S. is as “active in NATO as it has ever been,” recent moves have shown this may not always be the case — with the question remaining for a cash-strapped and unpopular Labour government: “Can Britain step up?”