Intelligence organisations in small European states today face a question: how to navigate an era of increasing international disorder. During the Cold War, the strategic position of Scandinavian states made them valuable collaborators for US intelligence, resulting in long-term partnerships. Intelligence cooperation is based on shared strategic interests but also depends upon mutual trust. With the new US administration, both these foundations are increasingly challenged.
The professionalisation and institutionalisation of intelligence work developed in parallel with the post-war international order. Transatlantic cooperation produced a shared understanding of threats and security challenges among allies while contributing to the generation of common professional norms and practices.
The recognition of shared professional norms and expertise is an essential component of trustful cooperation. Intelligence professionals often define their role as truth-tellers, knowledge producers committed to speaking truth to power. While this ideal is not always realised in practice, it has played a role in distinguishing intelligence work in democratic systems from that in authoritarian regimes. As producers of evidence-based knowledge, intelligence actors require professional autonomy, and the politicisation of intelligence constitutes a professional and institutional failure.
The return of President Trump marked a significant change in transatlantic intelligence relations, both in terms of strategic priorities and in the autonomy of intelligence professionals vis-à-vis the political leadership.
Before his inauguration in January 2025, the President threatened a US takeover of Greenland. The announcement presaged an aggressive move away from Scandinavian allies and marked a significant departure from the ideal of a rules-based international order. In March, US intelligence sharing with Ukraine ceased. While this unprecedented decision was subsequently reversed, the event demonstrated a widening gap in strategic priorities between US and European allies.
The new US administration also challenges the shared professional norms underpinning cooperation. Embracing a populist discourse, the President has previously described US intelligence organisations as part of the ‘deep state’. The administration has also shown a lack of recognition for professional autonomy by dismissing intelligence personnel on ideological grounds, by promoting inexperienced but loyal individuals, and by publicly criticising intelligence assessments which contradict political narratives.
These two shifts have provoked a set of unusual public comments on transatlantic collaboration. In October 2025, representatives for the Dutch intelligence services publicly recognised the growing challenges of intelligence sharing. They voiced concerns about politicisation, highlighting the importance of professional norms and expertise for trustful partnerships. In addition, the Netherlands reduced transatlantic intelligence sharing on topics related to Russia and intelligence with human rights implications.
While the transatlantic landscape raises challenges for small European states, the uncertainties also create new opportunities for regional collaboration. Dutch representatives for instance point to strengthened cooperation between Scandinavian states, UK, France, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, driven by a shared commitment to Ukraine.
If properly managed, transformed collaborative patterns can decrease dependency on the US. They could also provide an opportunity to enhance the democratic legitimacy of intelligence in Europe.
A key professional norm underpinning intelligence collaboration is the ability to keep secrets. This is especially important for small states in unequal partnerships. As a result, cooperation often lacks appropriate structures for democratic oversight, with a potentially greater effect on smaller partners, such as the Scandinavian states. The resulting lack of transparency can decrease public trust in intelligence services and their public communication, creating domestic vulnerabilities.
Navigating the situation, European states should seize the opportunity to address the accountability gap by embedding oversight mechanisms within regional cooperation frameworks. Such structures can be complemented by collaboration among informal oversight actors, such as investigative journalists, academics, and civil society organisations. Multidimensional oversight could enhance public dialogue on intelligence, build public understanding of intelligence work, and thereby strengthen trust.
In this way, the current transatlantic uncertainty may offer an opportunity to adapt to a changing international order and strengthen both security and the legitimacy of European intelligence services.
Hedvig Ördén
Researcher
Psychological Defence Research Institute
Lund University
Sweden
Affiliated Researcher
The Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Sweden
