Former CIA Chief Says New Zealand Is Probably Withholding Intelligence From the United States
New Zealand’s intelligence agencies are almost certainly weighing what to share with the United States, a senior former American intelligence official has suggested, as the Five Eyes alliance faces its most serious internal tensions in decades.
Susan Miller, the former head of counterintelligence at the CIA, told RNZ in an in-depth interview published on Monday that New Zealand and its other intelligence partners were likely conducting a quiet but serious review of what information could safely be passed to Washington under the current Trump administration. Miller, who led a probe into Russian interference in American elections before having her security clearance revoked by President Donald Trump, was blunt about what she expected Five Eyes nations to be doing behind closed doors.
“I’m not going to be in that room when the Five Eyes, minus America, probably sit down and say, what do we do?” she told RNZ. She was equally direct about the likely outcome, saying New Zealand and its partners would almost certainly decide “We can’t share everything with this guy.”
Miller spoke warmly of New Zealand’s intelligence community, describing its personnel as “righteous” and “super smart,” but suggested that same quality of staff would be leading any reassessment of what intelligence flows to their American counterparts.
The Five Eyes alliance is one of the world’s most extensive intelligence-sharing arrangements, linking the spy agencies of New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. For decades, it has operated largely without public scrutiny, with member states pooling signals intelligence and other sensitive material. But the norms that underpinned the arrangement were built on an assumption of broadly aligned democratic values and stable, trustworthy governance across member states.
That assumption is now under serious strain. The Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with traditional allies over trade, military commitments, and the conduct of foreign policy. Within the intelligence world, concerns have grown about whether sensitive material shared with the US could be misused or compromised. Miller’s own experience illustrated the risk. After leading a counter-intelligence probe into Russian election interference, she found herself stripped of her security clearance by the same government she had spent her career serving.
Andrew Little, who served as a cabinet minister overseeing New Zealand’s intelligence agencies under a previous Labour government, told RNZ that he agreed agencies were likely factoring in “current conditions” when making decisions about what to share. Little noted that intelligence agencies are required to act within New Zealand’s legal framework and must weigh their obligations carefully, an implicit acknowledgment that the relationship with Washington is not unconditional.
New Zealand’s own intelligence establishment was careful not to confirm or deny any specific changes to its practices. The Security Intelligence Service released a statement noting that the Five Eyes partnership “continues to function largely as it always has” and pointed to “robust policies and processes” that govern how cooperation is carried out, emphasising that sharing must align with New Zealand’s legal obligations and human rights framework.
The careful wording of that response is notable. It neither denied that conditions were being reviewed nor confirmed that material was being withheld. It insisted the relationship was functioning as normal while at the same time stressing the conditions under which intelligence must be shared — conditions that may not always be met by the current US administration.
New Zealand is not alone in navigating this terrain. British officials were reported earlier this year to have suspended the sharing of some intelligence with the United States following concerns about the potential use of information in military operations that may not have complied with international law. That suspension represented an extraordinary fracture in the Five Eyes framework and gave weight to the idea that alliance partners are actively managing the risks posed by Washington’s current direction of travel.
The timing of this debate matters for New Zealand. With a general election approaching later this year, questions about the country’s foreign and intelligence relationships have become live political issues. The government has already faced scrutiny over its positioning on the Iran-related fuel disruption and its relationship with Washington more broadly. The question of how closely New Zealand should align itself with the Trump administration, and what conditions should govern that alignment, is no longer a conversation confined to specialists.
For ordinary New Zealanders, the practical consequences of any intelligence review may be invisible in the short term. But the broader principle at stake — whether democratic allies can still rely on the United States as a stable and trustworthy intelligence partner — is one of the defining foreign policy questions of this era. Susan Miller, a career intelligence professional who served that country with distinction and was punished for it, believes the answer is no, at least for now. New Zealand’s own spy agencies appear to have reached similar conclusions, however quietly they are expressing them.
What do you think — should New Zealand prioritise its sovereignty and values when deciding what to share with Washington, or maintain the strongest possible intelligence relationship with the US regardless? Share your view in the comments below.