The Rest Is Classified - 186. The Secret Spy Network: Can Five Eyes Survive Trump? (Ep 4)

Episode Date: August 19, 2026

The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance that has endured for decades. But can it survive Donald Trump in the White House? Listen as David and Gordon are joined by Richard Kerbaj for the final instalment of their series exploring the tumultuous history of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance. ------------------- ⁠⁠⁠The Secret History of the Five Eyes by Richard Kerbaj⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠The Defector by Richard Kerbaj⁠⁠⁠ ------------------- THE REST IS CLASSIFIED LIVE 2026 at The Rest Is Fest: Buy your tickets ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to see David and Gordon live on stage at London’s Southbank Centre on 4 September: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/the-rest-is-classified-live/⁠⁠⁠⁠ ------------------- Sign-up for our free newsletter where producer Becki takes you behind the scenes of the show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/goalhanger.com/tric-free-newsletter-sign⁠-up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ------------------- Join the Declassified Club to go deeper into the world of espionage with exclusive Q&As, interviews with top intelligence insiders, regular livestreams, ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, and weekly deep dives into original spy stories. Members also get curated reading lists, special book discounts, prize draws, and access to our private chat community. Just go to ⁠⁠therestisclassified.com⁠ or join on Apple Podcasts. ------------------- Get a 10% discount on business PCs, printers and accessories using the code TRIC10. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://HP.com/CLASSIFIED⁠⁠⁠⁠ for more information. T&C's apply. ------------------- EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restisclassified Upgrade your online protection with an all-in-one security app! It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30-day money-back guarantee 🌍 ------------------- Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@restisclassified⁠ Video Editor: Joe Pettit Social Producer: Emma Jackson Assistant Producer: Alfie Rowe Producer: Becki Hills Head of History: Dom Johnson Exec Producer: Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For exclusive interviews, bonus episodes, ad-free listening, early access to series, first look at live show tickets, a weekly newsletter, and discounted books. Join the Declassified Club at the Rest is Classified.com. The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance that has endured for decades, but can it survive Donald Trump in the White House? Well, welcome to The Rest Is Classified. I'm David McCloskey. And I'm Gordon Carrera. And this is our fourth and final episode looking at the...

the history of the five eyes. And I'm thinking now, it's a shame that we don't do five episodes. So we've done four eyes on the five eyes. That's right. And we're now on the fourth eye. And we have been looking at the origins, the tensions during the Cold War. And in the last episode, we really brought it up nearly to the present day. We talked a lot about kind of post-9-11 era, the conflict over China, the emergence of China, and what that means for the five eyes. And we're now going to talk about the Five Eyes very much in the present day in the world of Donald Trump. And I think also talk a lot at the end of this episode about where this relationship might be going. That's right.

And we're joined again by Richard Cabar, author of The Secret History of the Five Eyes. It's great to be back. This episode is brought to you by HP. In intelligence, you quickly learn that you are only as strong as the network around you. It's rarely a single major event that undermines an operation. It's the gaps between systems. That's where information leaks. It's the same in business.

Leaders face a constant battle against strict timelines, mismatch tools, and the worry their security isn't as tight as they think it is. Which is why HP approaches technology, not as a collection of gadgets, but as an integrated system. And crucially, that protection is built in at hardware level. It runs quietly in the background, blocking threats without requiring constant specialists. oversight. With the team of business advisors, HP helps businesses of all sizes, find technology that fits their needs and budget. To see how HP helps businesses work securely and productively, visit HP.com forward slash classified. Trick listeners also benefit from 10% off HP business technology with the code Trick 10. This episode is brought to you by NordVPN. Data breaches are rare,

singular assaults. Think of a file download as the final step in a multi-stage attack. Whilst waiting for a traditional scan, you could end up exposed to other threats. That's why intercepting threats at the source is key. Neutralizing those harmless-looking links, identifying and blocking those scam websites. With NordVPN's digital security app, you won't get ambushed. Much more than a VPN, their built-in next-gen antivirus stands at the forefront of your digital defenses. Anti-scam protection, anti-malware, anti-tracking privacy features, scam call filtering. NordVPN gives you that ongoing layer of protection operating in the background.

To get our exclusive discount on your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com slash rest is classified. It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. That's NordVPN.com slash rest is classified. The links in the episode description. When Westchette first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get

when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. Where we left it last time was post-Snowden, some of the issues around China. we've seen, I guess, is Five Eyes increasingly go public and be more public, haven't they, in terms of having a public profile. Precisely. I think that takes us back to the beginning of episode one, where we talked about the case

of the first public but non-publicized operation by Five Eyes, where they confronted the head of the SVR at the Russia mission in New York. And that was 2022, wasn't it? That was 2022 in a lead-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. in 2023, the Five Eyes got together and said, let's put on a Five Eyes conference. And that was the first time in its history that the five leaders of the Five Eyes, the respective human intelligence agency leaders, stood together to talk about the big existential threat and that threat.

So we've now gone through Cold War, War on Terror. Now, this is the threat that China presents, the existential threat. And I should say, I was there, actually, when they did that. And it was in the lovely confines of Stanford in California. You had the heads of, I guess, the security agency arm. So it was from the UK, it was Ken McCallum, head of MI5, was there, the head of the FBI, Chris Ray. And they were there on a public stage for the first time to talk about the threat from China, specifically.

And it was interesting. I think they chose to do it in Silicon Valley, which is where Stanford is, partly to say it's about intellectual property being stolen by China and to raise the concern level and to speak out about it. And they really had made a desire they wanted to go public. It was slightly unfortunate because it came just after. This is October 23, after October the 7th, when, you know, the Israel-Hamas kind of conflict started after Hamas attacked Israel. And it meant actually that almost overshadowed their desire to talk about China at the time.

I think it didn't quite get the focus maybe that they expected and they'd put a lot of work into it. But it was a sign that we've seen in recent years, FireVis actually put out statements. What preceded that big Five-Veyes event was a bilateral event that was hosted here at MI5 by Ken McKell. And it was him and Chris Ray standing side by side to talk about the China threat in 2022. I think it was summer of 2022. Chris Ray, former FBI director. Correct. act. And I felt that that was a historic moment at the time because as we've explained now over the

preceding episodes, you know, they've gone through World War II Cold War, combating Soviet threat and then combating Islamist threat during a war on terror, but never before had those two leaders stood side by side so publicly to discuss an existential crisis, and that was China. So then what follows the following year is that big event. And just behind the scenes, because I, ask the question for something that I'm currently doing at the moment, researching on China, but why weren't the others involved in the 2022 case? And the way it was explained to me is that it took some people a little longer to sort of catch up and to feel comfortable with going publicly, because the issue around China became an issue regarding attribution. Of course,

the West, particularly the US and UK, became quite familiar with China's cyber-respinage capabilities in the 2000s. And they would discuss these behind closed doors and confront Chinese officials about it behind closed doors. But there was a timidity and an unwillingness to speak up about it publicly and attribute it because you had the trade ties between the countries. And so you don't want to undermine trade in the interests of national security, but that would eventually become part of the big problem that we're facing with China. There were lots of interesting things about this Five Eyes meeting. I mean, one of them was the different delegations. Like, When the FBI director turns up, there's like a fleet of black SUVs and like armed, you know, bodyguards, lots of people.

The New Zealand guy literally was traveling around with one aid and that's it. He was probably stopped at the airport and surge. This is a random check, sir. But it was also interesting talking, because, you know, sit down with the head of... You show up in a rented car. It wasn't quite like that. Let's not be too dismissive. But it was very interesting talking to the head of New Zealand intelligence.

Because he was making the point, we have a different outlook even on China. We are a Pacific trading nation rooted in the Pacific. Even in a slightly different viewpoint from Australia, they're obviously sometimes lumped together. And so they, I think, were less willing to talk up the China threat than the Aussies. No, the Kiwis. The Kiwis, yeah. The Aussies are quite full. But also, they have a different take on foreign policy that Kiwis don't tend to be so closely aligned and in step with the Americans.

And I think you get to respect that to a degree. You know, I don't like the US. Of course, we love the US. I love Americans, Dave. But the point being is that they're quite independent when it comes to foreign policy. And that was demonstrated in the mid-1980s, as we've previously discussed in the other episodes. In David Langy's case, where he said to Reagan, no, you can't dock your ships here. Take your ships elsewhere, buddy. And that was that.

Well, I mean, one of the advantages in particular, I think for the smaller members of the Five Eyes of having it not be public and having it be secret for so long is that you maintain all of the benefits of this intelligence partnership. And you can steer a slothier. different foreign policy from the US or even the UK, whereas the more the more five eyes becomes public, the more you kind of are using strategic declassifications or using your intelligence agencies to send political messages, it becomes, in some ways it, you know, it's, I think why do it because it creates why it becomes so public about it?

Well, no, yeah, kind of. I think I disagree, well, I disagree respectfully because I think by being more transparent, you're actually being, the only way you can operate as an intelligence agency is if you have a public voter, right? You need the public to be on side, to agree with what you're doing. No, no member of the public. You don't want any member of the public to think they're spying on me, first of all, unless you're the bad guy. And also, you need that goodwill. And I think transparency within reason, it provides that goodwill. And I think talking about the five eyes as a whole is particularly important now at a time where alliances are so crucial,

but they're particularly important at a time when we're facing threats from, say, Russia or China. We had all together, we've got these historic ties that keep us together. But let's discuss the elephant in the room, which is the fact that things have got harder for five eyes. And the reason is Donald Trump, because we're obviously in the second Donald Trump term now. and it's definitely different from the first and maybe we'll come to that. But even in the first, there were some tensions, weren't there,

between the five eyes? I mean, there was some tension, and we've talked about this separately, about US, UK, for instance, you know, because of the Christyel dossier and Donald Trump's kind of dislike of the deep state. And he conceptualised...

He attacked his own agencies. He attacked... And he conceptualises the deep state, though, is not just American, but also the five eyes to some extent. Without calling him the five eyes, but, yeah, Yeah, anything that's sort of tied within that, he despised, and it was very obvious during his first term.

And, of course, he accused GCHQ of bugging his telephones during the electoral campaign. Yeah, bugging Trump Tower, wasn't it? And then GCHQ had to figure out what to do with this, because at any point up until that event, there would usually not to confirm nor deny. But on that specific case, having come from the. White House itself, they felt compelled to speak up. And so in coalition with the May government, they said, we need to put out a statement. And they did. And I go into that in some detail. But the point being is that, yes, that impact wasn't just on the US intelligence agencies,

but it was on the closest part. Why did he accuse GCHQ of tapping? I think it's about that idea, which is, was the five eyes a way of spying on people you shouldn't be spying on? And this has always been kind of conspiracy theory on the left. So Russia Gate was the backdrop to some of this. And it was being spread around kind of conspiratorial circles in the right that Trump Tower had been spied on, that they'd been intercepting communication. It was stuff to do like contacts with Russia and that there were bank servers and all these kind of things communicating with each other.

And the argument became, ah, well, you know, okay, it's not the FBI and aren't doing it. It's the Brits doing it on behalf of the deep state. So it goes back to this idea of the Five Eyes being a kind of nefarious. way of getting around things. And I think at that point, GCHQ, as you said, Richard, felt unusually we're actually going to push back on the White House against this because we don't want this idea to get out circulation itself. You know, that we as the Brits are spying on an American candidate president, you know,

you can imagine how thrilled GCHQ officials where they're like, right, we've just finished with Snowden, where we've had to run a breach inquiry into allegations that he's from Almit. And now we're having to deal with this a few years later. But again, in Trump 1.0. I didn't detect any sense that the relationship, but the actual working relationship between NSA and GCHQ was impacted. You would think, you would think, you know, in the wake of an allegation like that,

that there might be, but it just kept on going. Well, the head of the NSA at the time went into the White House and said, this will never happen. This has never happened. This is BS. Essentially, that's what he said to him, Trump. And so, yeah, he stood by. GCHQ, the head of the NSA, stood by GCHQ during that event.

So Trump 1.0, the relationship survived, the five eyes. I mean, you know, a bit of kind of surface tension. In fairness to the Trump 1.0 administration, if we look at the security operations they conducted, they took out the ISIS Caliphate, they took out al-Baghdadi, they took out Salamani. So there were many missions. They took a tough line on China, which again is all aligned. with some of the parties.

So they conducted some big operations that are usually missed because of the noise and chaos that comes from Trump himself, right? Yeah. But there were a lot of great things that were conducted from a security perspective. 2.0 slightly different. Yeah, let's get on to the current Trump term. Slightly different focus than 2.0, hasn't it? I mean, I guess how would you characterize Trump 2.0 versus 1.0?

Do you tell us, David? Well, I would say, you're an American. Well, it's perhaps still too soon to tell the impact. of all of this, but certainly when you look at things like Greenland, when you look at the operation against Maduro, that there is a kind of, yeah, the various not so subtle threats against our Canadian friends, there's a sense that there is a hemispheric focus. It's different. To the, you know, to the foreign policy that in a kind of, if you interpret it in its most

sort of dark form, you could say, well, maybe. maybe we let sort of the Chinese do what they want on East Asia, kind of, or maybe we let the Russians do what they want on Eastern Europe. I think there's a fear, I think, here, probably, in the UK and Europe or in the rest of the five lives, that a sort of much, I think a U.S. under Trump that is maybe more unpredictable, more aggressive and more focused on a narrow set of foreign policy issues closer to home. will have much less interest in sustaining this relationship. But it's actually hurting the United States the most, I think, because if you think about the impact this had on the other four partners, look at the latest case in Iran. The Brits were unwilling to get involved.

To use the basis. So with the New Zealand. Yeah. And so in the end, they reluctantly allowed it. But the tensions are very much there. The Canadians, the fact that Marconi had to come out during Davos, to talk about the importance of, you know, taking matters into your own hands when you're a smaller partner where you're a medium-sized

country. That was quite a pivotal moment because I think there's a realization now that you can't really just depend on the United States because up until this point, at the Five Eyes, all the smaller partners have done so. And it's worked out pretty well for everyone, despite all of the tensions. But from a political perspective now, it just looks so different because he is essentially driving the machine. Everyone's dancing to his tune and he's, and I think that's impacting the agencies, reputationalally as well,

I don't think operationally, particularly not on the counterterrorism stuff. Yeah. But the Canada one is, I mean, you know, Canada is part of the five eyes. And if you have a US president who's saying, we want it to be the 51st state, I mean, that is fundamentally,

it's hard to see how, you can trust the political level at least. Now, I guess your point, and maybe your point as well, David, is that at the operational level, Canadian spies are probably still talking to American spies and things are fine. But there's a level, you know, there's a point at which the political rhetoric must start to impact on the operational relationships, mustn't there? Is there? I mean, so if you look at Iran, I mean, because I take your point that when you look at the conduct

of the war, it has not been, there isn't, there isn't, you know, sort of, you know, sort of of a shared sense of purpose between the five eyes far from at the opposite right at the same time if you dug into what is the NSA collecting on Iran what are the five eyes collecting on Iran the various human services i mean you know british human on Iran has tended to be quite good sure i would imagine that all of those channels are haven't been impacted in the least because there's still a yeah exactly because there's still a shared sense of of everybody wants the same information advantage, right? And even if you say, well, you know, we're not going to, we're not going to offer you

basing rights for this conflict because we think it's a terrible idea. Well, all of the siganders, all of the spooks are still sharing everything that they were before, which speaks to something that's now deeply embedded in these relationships, right? Do you think everyone is sharing the way they shared before? For instance, if you were MI6 and you had a very sensitive source on Russia, would you be sharing it with this White House in the same way? Or, you know, where we've, she's gone now, but Tulsi Gabbard, you know, and the risks of declassification of what came through. I mean, you know, if the alliance was based on sharing. More transactional, right?

Because with human intelligence operations, you're not going to share everything, particularly not sourcing. And I think from that perspective, yes, absolutely you would reconsider. Some of the human sources. I mentioned counterterrorism earlier because that's a specific thing. If there's a threat to life, that keeps going. I think the other stuff, like as you mentioned, Russia or China or something like that, I think they could rightly hold back some information. And that's within the structure.

There is a classification to allow that to happen. Sure. There's also ways to share the product but not be transparent about the sourcing or, or to, you know, for example, we talked about this a bit, actually, one of our conversations around Bletchley is, you know, there's a practice of eye washing. You can have really sensitive information and you still share the relevant pieces, but you hide the fact that it's humant or, you know, you break it up so it looks like it's multiple sources or you actually make it look like it's signant or something else like that, right?

So there are ways that you can still really keep sharing the same information, but maybe obscure the sourcing, right? Which I think that probably is happening. It's what happens. Yeah. And I mean, there've been a few moments where, I mean, there was some talk, I remember, over Venezuela when the US was attacking those small boats, you know, where there was like, the UK's not going to share intelligence.

Yeah. And I remember hearing that and being like, the UK does not collect that much intelligence off the coast of Venezuela, you know, I think it's... All that juicy MI6 drug boat targeting information. So it was a bit like... Turn the switches off. Yeah. Yeah.

So there's a bit where there's a bit of kind of performative politics around some of this stuff. But also a lot of the headlines. I mean, the headlines don't really match the reality. The FD that came out suggesting that somehow the Canadians are going to be cut out of the five eyes. I mean, it doesn't kind of work that way. It was so thin. Yeah.

On, you know, substance, I think. And because there was just nothing. Immediately they denied it. First of the U.S. administration denied it. But also how? How do you do it? Like, how do you actively?

I just didn't buy it. When reports come out, like, about the UK ceasing intelligence sharing about targeting drugboats, what do you think has actually happened below the water line in the system? I think, I mean, I tell you what I think happens is some lawyer in the UK has gone. If we pass any intelligence we have, the US may use it for lethal targeting, which we don't believe is legal. Therefore, we have to stop sharing. So there's been a legal order within the United States.

the UK to stop sharing. Right. So I think that is true, but I think the reality was there was almost nothing to share. Well, and I would presume, I guess it depends on how the lawyer wrote up that directive, but I would presume if MI6 has a really, I don't know why they would, but if MI6 had a very well-placed source inside the Venezuelan government, for example, they would continue, that's providing strategic intelligence. I think it was a really narrow thing, which is like, are you

passing something which could be used for something which would be illegal in the UK's eyes, like a lethal strike. And that's been the issue with certain kinds of drone strikes in the past and things like that. So I think there are times, and it goes back to our, you know, we've made this point before. There are times when you can say we will not share that. It isn't, everything is always automatically shared. And that's kind of normal. But we're just in a slightly more feebrile atmosphere. But I think as well, the Brits are trying to maintain the relationships. I mean, this account of the Five Eyes meeting. I think we should talk about this, shouldn't we?

Because the Brits still try and, you know, the relationship between the Brits and the Americans, they do their best to keep maintaining it, don't they? But it's not always been easy with Cash Patel, I think, of the FBI. Well, and if you're not watching this podcast on video, then you haven't seen the fact that Gordon, Richard and I are all on jet skis. Having this meeting. Because I've decided I will only meet with Gordon. on a jet ski. It's the best way for us to have a conversation. This is fascinating. The Cash

Patel thing, which came out in the context of a massive New York Times investigation into essentially the way he's been running the FBI. I mean, how many FBI special agents did they interview for this thing? It was like dozens and dozens and dozens. And one of the best, kind of the juiciest tidbits, which I, of course immediately then worked into a novel, was that when Cash Patel is coming over to the UK for the Five Eyes, for Five Eyes meetings, right? So they have these annual conferences, right? The heads of agencies meet. Yeah, exactly.

And it rotates who hosts it. And this year it was going to be the Brits. And the request came in from Patel's office, basically saying, look, he doesn't like having meetings and office settings, which I agree. I said what offices are terrible places to have meetings. And what he wanted to do is, okay, let's mix it up a bit and think of some interesting places we could have meetings. Could we go to a Premier League soccer game? Him and the head of MI5, Ken McCannard.

Could they have a box there where they could, you know, do some business? Could they go on jet skis? Yeah. Could there be a... I'm up for that. Can we just pause at the jet skis? I mean, like, how do you even have a meeting when you're on jet skis? I guess...

Because you can't talk. Because it's noisy. Maybe it's more of a trust-building exercise beforehand. That's what we should have done. You know what? We should be doing this. Yeah. We should have done this.

Yeah. It's like going paintballing, isn't it? It's the equivalent of going paintballing and as a cooler. A cooler. Yes. Yeah. And where would you do it in the UK? Yeah.

Where would you actually get? I haven't seen jet skiing is a big thing here. I'm in my second week here over the summer and I have yet to see jet skis. I'll arrange it. I'll arrange it. I'll arrange it. Australia. That's what you did.

Well, the other one was he wanted, I think Cash was trying to get his girlfriend a private tour of Windsor Castle. Yeah. I think they go to Windsor Castle to meet with the King, which is also classic British, can I just say, which is like, how do we keep the Americans on board? Let's take them to a castle. Take them to see the King. Americans love a King.

Americans love a King. We'll impress them with a King. The really the substantive piece, though, that came out of this whole spread on the relationship between the FBI and MI5 was that there was a particular. role in the FBI office here in the embassy that the Brits wanted to keep. And I don't exactly, I don't know if you guys know, which role it was. I think it was a technical type role. The Brits were afraid that the role would get cut or that the officer's time would be extended.

And it actually got into the level where the director of MI5 was going to raise it with cash. It was raised. I believe Cash said, yeah, he's going to stay. And then a couple weeks later retracted. Retracted. Yeah. But again, I think if it were reversed, that's not happening.

Of course not. That's the power of us. It goes back to the power about us. It's team America, man. Come on. Yeah. I mean, I would love to be a fly on the wall in these Five Eyes meetings, these like, you know, ones that happen every year. Well, maybe you can give them a Huawei phone, Gordon.

Maybe you can do that. Come find out what's happening. Yeah. But I think they meet at different places every year, but they tend to keep it secret until after it. I attended a couple of them, actually. I did a talk at a Five Eyes conference here in London shortly after the book. To the Five Eyes. Yeah, to the Five Eyes, yeah.

About the Five Eyes to the Five Eyes. And there were representatives from all the agencies. Tell us more. Were the jet skis? Were the... I was disappointed about not having the jet skis there. Okay. Yeah.

There weren't, I know. Good snacks? Not really. If there were any good snacks, it didn't serve me good snacks. Wow. You know? But they allowed me to talk about all sorts of stuff. They didn't bring me back for four weeks like you guys did.

you know, I think you guys have got better snacks here. Yeah. Even though we don't have a Canadian in the Keywood. But there was another event that I went to just a few months ago, actually, maybe two months ago or three months ago, to New York that was being hosted by the NYPD. But the conference was fascinating. There were about 500 people representatives from many of the human agencies and law enforcement agencies. It was largely counterterrorism focused, but there were some other discussions. and it's quite reassuring to see how well people were getting on

and how well they do get on operationally. Let's take a break there, and when we come back, we'll just delve a bit deeper into that question about whether the Five Eyes has got a future. What are you doing on the 4th of September? Oh, you're still free? Why? Haven't you heard that me and me are all going to be at the South Bank Centre?

We have full weekend live shows for you all from your favourite guys. whole hang of podcasts. Hello, old Shep. I'm going to be there with Tom Holland talking about the most scandalous housewives of Regency England. And I'm going to be sitting down with the wonderful Anita, Anna, my co-host on the

Empire Pod, to talk about the history of modern Iran with the absolutely brilliant Ali Ansari. And Dominic and I will be telling a thrilling Victorian adventure on the Friday night to kick things off. And it's not just us. Mary Beard is coming. Stanley Toucci's coming. You really couldn't ask

for a better guess list. Unless, you on it. If you want to join us, head to Southbank Center.co. UK for the full lineup, buy your tickets now. See you there. See you there. Hey guys, it's David here and I've got some exciting news for you. This September

I'll be teaming up with the rest is politics U.S. co-host, fellow American, and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist, Anthony Scaramucci for a live show at the South Bank Center in London. We'll be joining forces to discuss the long

and often controversial role of America as the world's police. We'll dive into why the U.S. has remained so central to global conflicts. And when an unstoppable force clashes with an immovable object, it's important to have someone in the room to keep control. For that reason, I've convinced Gordon to come and moderate the discussion. Based on the last time Anthony and David went head to head during that series on the JFK assassination, I think I will have my work cut out. But to buy tickets, head to southbankcenter.com.ukuk and search for Team America.

We look forward to seeing you there. Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers. The Rest is Science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. When we talk about beating cancer, we often focus a lot on survival. And that can mean overlooking impacts that last long after treatment ends. Yeah, for example, take cancers in children and young people. The treatments themselves can be incredibly harsh. They can cause lifelong side effects like infertility or hearing loss.

And Cancer Research UK is working to change that because young people, they should be able to grow up hearing the voices of the people that they love and living their lives to the fullest. That's right. And one clinical trial led by Cancer Research UK showed that giving another drug alongside chemotherapy nearly halved the number of children losing their hearing. And today, the treatment combination is being used by doctors across the world. For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research and breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk.org slash rest is science. Well, welcome back. So everything's fine in the five eyes.

That's what we're saying. No problems. Nothing to see here. Where to get the jet skis and things like that. There's been talk, though, hasn't there, about expanding it? I mean, some people want to get into the five eyes. Some other countries, I mean, Japan, South Korea, I mean, in the past, Israel, I think, has wanted to be in. It's hard to imagine, Germany.

There's institutional jealousy, I think, as well, from the outside of saying, why can't we be part of this club? And I think, given what we've now discussed about the Five Eyes and its history and its shared purpose and shared language and culture and similar laws, how would you bring other countries from the outside in? and how would you get them to prove their security assurance? How do you get to prove that they're not breached by moles? Just the idea of expanding inherits risk. You're naturally going to bring them on. And I think they're sharing information when and if they need to. So there is an outer circle of the five-bys and an outer outer circle and an outer-outer circle and what have you.

So those exchanges continue on. They happen bilaterally or trilaterally with countries. But it's not the same as being part of the club. But it's not being part of the club. And I think that part of the club, well, you had to be there at the beginning, right? Because it's Genesis, late 1930s, right through the wartime, through the Cold War. They've lived, they have conducted so much together. They've lived through so much, there's so much shared history.

I just don't think you can just somehow get someone in. And if they do, bring in the sixth or seventh, I'll do an updated edition. The bigger underlying question, though, around the expansion is the value. There's an obvious value created for the party that would join. Yeah. Yeah. But what would be the value, even if you could work through the legalities of it, and you were convinced that the Germans weren't penetrated? Yeah. Which seems laughable. They have been by Russia, haven't they recently? Yeah.

What would be the value to the five eyes of bringing in another service? And what basis could they provide, as a SIGAN basis, for instance, that aren't already covering the entire world? So they've got the coverage. So that is the real. questions, I think, about the values. I remember there was a point where the Germans, I think it was around the time of Snowden, where they were quite jealous about what Five Eyes was, and they said, can we join? And I think it was

interesting because I think the existing Five Eyes said to them, if you want to join, you have to understand, you know, you don't just get the intelligence. You have to go out and get it. You know, you don't just receive, you've got to go out and provide us, you know, inspire on other countries and have an

exclusive relationship with them. And they were like, oh, that's what it means. You know, I think there was a view that maybe this is just a kind of, you join the club and you get stuck. Besides, the Brits and Americans probably said, well, by the way, we're spying on you anyway. We don't need your stuff. Right, right. We know what Angler-Mercall is saying.

There's a question, though, whether, because we talked about whether there are different alliances. There's this thing called Orcus, Australia, UK, US, which is a submarine deal. But some people have questioned whether actually that could become more important than five eyes. I think there's separate things because that's not, that's not about just. intelligent sharing, whereas Five Eyes is. I think the reason that Orcas came about,

I think that's a, for me, that would become a really compelling story to look into, and I think one of the reasons came about is the... Focus on China. China. There's a China threat. But the other reason was very much political as well. I think Scott Morrison at the time,

Australia, the Australian Prime Minister, and who I interviewed several times over several months about this, he wanted, you know, his vision was to bring Australia closer to the US and to the special relationship. And I think, you know, there's value in that, you could argue. But the other thing was that he had to figure out, in his own words, not mine, a plan B that was better than Plan A.

And Plan A was that they had a deal with the French, for the French to create these nuclear-powered submarines, or these submarines, that I don't believe the French word, there were diesel, not nuclear-powered. So the US could potentially provide the nuclear power technology. And they essentially cut out the French, it irritated the French. They paid him more than 900 million euros. Please check that, but I think it's about right. And it brought the U.S.S.

and the U.K. to create these super expensive submarines. And we don't know when they're going to be finished exactly, right? So there's that. And I think there could be some tension. It really irritated the New Zealanders and the Canadians. Because if this is a potential five-eyes thing, why are you withholding the information about your vision for these submarines

from your very closest partners? From the Canadians and New Zealanders. And I know they got really irritated. I spoke to very senior political leaders there and people, they were very irritated by it. From his perspective, I don't think he didn't really care because for him, it was Australia's interest that was most important. I think as a prime minister, you do need to put your country's interests first.

People can make their judgment about how that was done and whether it could have been done a little bit more subtly. There's another question that I think hangs over this, which is in an age when a five eyes is a Cold War creation. Really? Yeah. And in the Cold War, the vast majority of technological breakthroughs in telecommunications in space. in space and defense were made inside the government, right? And we now are in a world where it's essentially the exact opposite, where most of the innovation and frankly,

most of the innovation that's going to be the underlying tech that goes into signals intelligence in the future, is probably not happening or is not happening as much as it used to in the basement of GCHQ or A.S. SD in Australia or the NSA. It's happening in Silicon Valley. It's happening in Silicon Valley. And the U.S. intelligence community's budget is around $100 billion. 106 billion, the latest.

Right. Or something like that, yeah. A year. Yeah. Right. So in fiscal year 2024, Apple's R&D budget plus its SG&A was $57 billion, right, which is probably more than the NSA. Yeah. Probably a bigger budget than the NSA.

Because you have 18 intelligence agencies in the U.S. R&D expenditure alone, right? If you look like Amazon's tech and infrastructure spend last year, was around $88 billion. Wow. And so I just, I wonder if there's a big question over the Five Eyes, which is it's still relevant. Yeah.

But is it less important now than it was at the height of the Cold War? You're comparing the money here, but there's a lot more, there's a lot more than that because totally. These commercial organizations aren't creating tech to collect. to collect intelligence and to spy. So it's a bit different. Totally.

It's just the scale of investment. But I guess the point is, does that suggest that the US, because we took all the way through, at least since the 50s, the US has been the dominant partner. And the talk is that, you know, 85% of the intelligence that comes into the five eyes is American. 15% or something is from the others. But if you look at the kind of money flows and AI and tech,

and the private sector, if anything, that imbalance is going to grow, you know, rather than shrink. The US is not getting less important, it's getting more important. And that, again, maybe changes the dynamics. Because if you're the smaller partners, again, you need to be in with the Americans. You need to keep in with this American machine and with its technology and the alliance. So you become almost more subservient, you know. Well, but also political systems change. That's the beauty about the West, right?

So in some sense, there's a disadvantage with having a democracy when it comes to national security, right? So you cannot run the authoritarian state missions that the Chinese and the Russians do. But in other sense, it's actually quite refreshing and so important because your political leaders change. And when new political leaders come in, they have different priorities in some cases. And then you have better relationships or your relationships get worse, depending on who's the head of which agency. So I think from that perspective, the lack of continuity is actually an important thing. Because things can go bad for a few years and then they can get better. Precisely. So with Trump, I mean, okay, so even if he does come and stay for a third term,

as some of the headlines are suggesting, eventually he's going to have to go. Right. And with him, so will the cabinet and so all that sort of thinking. And I think there'll be a pushback against the ideologies that imposed on the systems. And I think eventually there'll be a correction of sort. And when the correction of sort happens, I think there's more likely to play into the hands of the four partners and not the other way around. Also, if you look at the, you know,

we talked a lot in the series about how there's essentially a very hard underlying logic in the five eyes, which is signals intelligence broadly, whether we're talking about splicing cables or whether we're talking about intercepting satellite downlinks, whatever it might be, is very capital intensive, right? Yeah. And geography matters.

And so burden sharing on the cost side and having a geographically disparate, essentially former colonial network are extremely valuable. I think that there are pieces of that that are less true today, in part because what we are going to be focusing more and more on collecting is digital. Those hyper, you know, sort of the big AI kind of hyperscalers, AWS, Amazon, Microsoft, whatever, the cloud, the stuff that's at the endpoint is much more, there's much more there and it's much more valuable. Yeah. And you also have a huge amount of commercially available information that you can go out and buy that you don't actually need to intercept, right?

You actually just go out through cutouts and purchase it. And having the U.S.'s defense budget compared to New Zealand or the UK matters a lot when you're talking about purchasing massive quantities of data. But what still does matter is the fact that you have, I mean, a lot of what used to be satellite downlinked comms are now under C cables. The geography and the choke points of those cables matter. And having a whole bunch of command and control satellites in low Earth orbit is still a geographic. It's still a geographic game to a degree, right? So the geography still matters. I agree with you.

It may not matter quite as much, but I think having Pine Gap, having Menworth Hill, Filingdale's, having Cyprus, having these places still matters. Because if it was simply about money, then the US could, you know. It's not simply about money. It's not simply about money. And even when we go back to the Bletchley stuff, it was the idea that two different approaches to code breaking, is better than one.

You know, and actually the benefits, different interpretations. You need dissenting voices. Descenting voices. And you don't get that when you have. If you have an echo chamber, you have intelligence failures, right? So I do. So you do need the external input. I think that's where the value comes in.

It's in the alliance rather than even just the geography. Yeah, but also the individuals, because for instance, a Canadian intelligence official working on analysis will have a slightly different interpretation of the analysis. Of the intelligence than, say, a US, and they will discuss it, and the best idea should always win. Yeah. But the ideas improve when you debate them. They tend to. But I guess the question is if, you know, the alliance has been based on shared values, shared interest, shared threats.

At the moment, you can see, as we, you know, we talked about the start of this episode, China is one way of approaching that. Although even within that, you know, New Zealand has a slightly different view. Also, you can see Canada thinking, actually, maybe we need to trade more with China because we're worried about our reliance on the US, which is more difficult. So you kind of go, I agree it's surviving at the operation level, but you can see some of the strains at least. Certainly. You know, in the way they see the world. So I guess last question for us is, is it still there in 10 years, 20 years, 5 hours? I just don't see how it's going to fall apart.

I genuinely don't see it. You know, could it go on hiatus? could the US withdraw, why would the others walk away? I can't see the other full walking away from the alliance. If the US walks away, then the others are more likely to stay together because they work really well together. But I also don't see the value that the US would get from walking away from far away, if anything, it's the other way around.

And for someone like Donald Trump, who is transaction driven and who is value-driven, I think he would even see that, well, we could create all this. at that base, yeah. We'd have to pay for it ourselves. Yeah, and this kind of rhetoric around Canada being becoming a 51st state, I mean, do we really believe that? It seems like a more likely scenario that it could be a thinner arrangement in which it's still at five eyes.

There's still loads of intelligence sharing. But in fact, I mean, there's an interesting example in the way the U.S. has deepened its relationship with Mossad at the Middle East, where it's not part of the five. eyes. But the U.S. has said, well, I'm not withdrawing from the five eyes. It's not like these things are not necessarily zero sum, but I deepen my partnership still kind of, I'm not sacrificing GCHQ information of the Israelis, but I just deepen this bilateral relationship because that's good for me in the region. And the Five Eyes remains operationally as it has. No, I agree. And I think that's the future is Five Eyes survives, but it possibly becomes less central and pivotal. And because

you can even see it in the UK is that they're working hard to build their intelligence relationships with European countries. You know, they're building it with Poland. They're building it with the Baltics. They're building with France and others. And so it's, to some extent, it's diversifying rather than having that one alliance. But that absolutely doesn't mean you get rid of that one alliance. No.

But you diversify, I think, in those cases. It becomes less, you know, the thing that defines everything. And by the way, intelligence agencies are great at compartmentalizing. information. So the Five Eyes stuff stays with the Five Eyes. And if we decide, if the U.S. decides for some reason that we want to have a deeper relationship with El Salvador, go for it. We can do that. And we will not relate to El Salvador sensitive information that's being collected under the auspices of the Five Eyes. Intelligence agencies do that, even if there wasn't a Five Eyes, we're not getting stuff in our bylaw with the Israelis.

and then sharing it with you. We're respecting the kind of compartmentalization of information that's so critical to intelligence in general. Okay, well, I think that's a good place to leave it. With the Five Eyes, we think, probably surviving, we think, but maybe slightly in a different form. We can do another episode. We can do the fifth episode of the Five Eyes if the Five Eyes collapses. Yeah, exactly. We'll definitely be there for that.

And I have resisted this entire series. Gordon has been wearing glasses off and on. I have resisted calling him a four. Thank you very much. And I've decided, I finally, my temptation grew too great as we close out the series. I'll put them on just for the end, just so you can do that. Maybe you guys can host me for sort of a late lunch at Five Guys. And then we sort of set it off from there.

Richard Cabarge on that note. Thank you very much. Author of The Secret History of the Five Eyes and also The Defector, which is just coming out in the US. It's about to come out in September. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Just a reminder that club members are going to be able to hear interviews with some of the intelligence chiefs who've sat inside these Five Eyes meetings, who've been at the heart of some of the decisions and are going to explain to us really how it really works.

They want to hear the interviews because we did them on Jetsky. Too loud. So to join if you want to hear those interviews at the rest is classified.com. We've also got some great series coming up which you'll get early access to on things like 9-11 and Kim Filby. So do join there, but otherwise, we'll see you next time. We'll see you next time. Ready to take your investing knowledge to pro-level? This is Fidelity Connects, your daily edge in the markets.

Get deep insights on real-time market topics that may impact your investment portfolio. Listen to Fidelity Connects on Spotify today and power your next move tomorrow.