Why did the united states get kicked out of intelligence agencies with other countries
Executive summary
The claim that "the United States got kicked out of intelligence agencies with other countries" is not directly supported by the documents provided; however, the reporting shows recurring causes that have led allies to distance themselves from U.S. intelligence sharing or to threaten exclusion from elite partnerships: high-profile leaks and surveillance revelations that eroded trust [1] [2], U.S. domestic political interventions and policy choices that strained relations [2] [3], and operational compromises or counterintelligence setbacks that reduced Washington’s reliability as a partner [4] [5]. The evidence points to relational and operational rupture rather than a single formal expulsion, and the sources do not document a formal multilateral ejection of the United States from major intelligence-sharing arrangements.
1. Why allies publicly grumble: leaks and surveillance revelations
Allied frustration has often followed intelligence disclosures that revealed the scope of U.S. surveillance and unilateral action; Edward Snowden’s 2013 cache exposed NSA programs that collected communications of foreign nationals and partners and produced lasting distrust among close allies [1], and reporting after those leaks shows that partners complained the U.S. kept them in the dark about breaches and accountability [2], a dynamic that undercuts the reciprocity central to intelligence-sharing clubs.
2. Operational failures that undermine trust with partners
When operational security collapses — whether because of compromised sources or mishandled covert actions —partners reassess the risks of cooperation; reporting that China dismantled a CIA human network, resulting in dozens of informants killed or imprisoned between 2010–2012, is cited as a case that crippled U.S. collection in a key region and raised allies’ questions about Washington’s tradecraft and candor [4], and broader studies show that compromised operations can prompt diplomatic lashbacks though not always catastrophic decoupling [5].
3. Political and policy choices that alienate member states
Politics in Washington has at times translated into alliance tension: media accounts note moments when U.S. domestic political actors proposed radical realignments — for example calls during a Trump administration episode to expel a fellow Five Eyes member — demonstrating how internal U.S. politics can spill into intelligence partnerships and make other members wary of U.S. stewardship [2], while critiques of the intelligence community’s secrecy and perceived politicization have also stressed relations with civilian oversight and partners [3].
4. Not a single “kick out,” but episodic distancing and bargaining
Analytical work on bilateral consequences of exposed operations (Belfer Center) shows that states often respond to revealed or suspected spying with calibrated measures—diplomatic protests, expulsions of individual officers, or temporary suspensions of certain programs—rather than wholesale expulsions of a dominant partner; the report’s review of 174 cases finds that the real-world fallout is often more nuanced and pragmatic than dramatic [5].
5. Domestic accountability and reputational costs inside the U.S. system
Debates within the United States about the intelligence community’s legality and transparency feed allied concerns: independent commentators and legal analysts argue that intelligence agencies have at times harmed constitutional norms and public trust through opaque programs, a critique that allies cite when demanding clearer rules of engagement or limits on shared data [3].
6. Limits of the record and what the sources do not say
None of the supplied sources documents a formal, collective expulsion of the United States from a multinational intelligence alliance; instead they record episodes of strained trust, specific operational setbacks, and political tensions that have driven partners to complain, recalibrate sharing arrangements, or press for reforms [1] [5] [2]. Where the sources are silent on a formal ejection, it is therefore not asserted here that such an event occurred.