CBS News reports, citing several American intelligence officials.

It is stated that Gabbard signed the directive back on July 20, ordering not to share information on peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine with the Five Eyes alliance — an intelligence partnership formed after World War II that includes the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Intelligence officials said the directive classified all analytical data and information related to peace talks as “NOFORN,” meaning prohibited from being shared abroad. This means that the information cannot be shared with any other country or foreign nationals. The directive also restricts the distribution of materials related to peace talks to those agencies that prepared or received them. Only information that has been previously made public can be shared.

At the same time, the document probably does not prohibit the exchange of diplomatic information gathered by means other than the U.S. intelligence community, or military operational information not related to the negotiations.

Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, reportedly has barred America’s closest intelligence allies from accessing information about ongoing Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations.

According to CBS News, a classified memo signed by Gabbard on July 20 directed US intelligence agencies to designate all analysis and reporting on the volatile talks as “NOFORN” – meaning no foreign dissemination.

JOIN US ON TELEGRAM Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.

That order effectively cut off the so-called Five Eyes alliance – the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – from intelligence they have long relied on to coordinate with Washington.

The memo, multiple US intelligence officials told CBS News, restricted distribution even within the US intelligence community, limiting access only to the agencies that produced the material. The only exceptions were reports already made public.

Advertisement

While the directive did not cover diplomatic reporting or military intelligence unrelated to negotiations, experts told CBS News the order risks undermining decades of trust among allies.

Steven Cash, a former CIA and DHS intelligence officer, warned that the value of the Five Eyes partnership lies in creating a “common intelligence picture” that allows allies to coordinate policy, negotiations, or military planning.

Cutting off partners in the midst of high-stakes peace talks, he suggested, could weaken their ability to “get the best deal we can, or fight the best war we can.”

Other Topics of Interest Rubio’s Tricky Task: Navigating Chasm Between Kyiv’s Security Needs, Moscow’s Demands Analysts tell Kyiv Post any truly effective deterrent for Ukraine would be “indistinguishable” from a NATO commitment, a move Moscow has already rejected.

CBS News national security contributor Sam Vinograd echoed those concerns, adding that Five Eyes partners often provide unique insights into Russia. Shutting them out, she said, could have a “chilling effect on critical intelligence sharing” and prompt them to develop their own separate channels without US involvement.

However, not all former officials saw the move as extraordinary. Ezra Cohen, a former Pentagon intelligence chief, told CBS News that NOFORN restrictions are routine across the alliance:

Advertisement

“There is a lot of information we do not share even with our Five Eyes partners, and it works in the reverse… Our interests are not always aligned.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment and referred questions to the White House, which has not yet responded, according to CBS.

US President Donald Trump said Thursday he would know within two weeks whether peace talks between Russia and Ukraine can succeed, signaling he may change course if no progress is made.

Speaking to Newsmax, Trump said: “Within two weeks we’re going to know one way or the other. After that, we’ll have to maybe take a different tack.”

The comments follow his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which ended without an accord, and White House talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European allies.

Hopes for a direct Putin-Zelensky meeting have since dimmed, with Zelensky accusing Moscow of avoiding negotiations and Russia claiming Kyiv’s demands are incompatible with its own.

Trump has previously set similar two-week deadlines, including in May when he pledged to reassess Putin’s commitment to peace.

Washington — As Russia’s war in Ukraine rages on despite high-level meetings to discuss a possible path to peace, CBS News has learned that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, issued a directive weeks ago to the U.S. intelligence community ordering that all information regarding the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations not be shared with U.S.-allied intelligence partners.

The memo, dated July 20 and signed by Gabbard, directed agencies to not share information with the so-called Five Eyes, the post-World War II intelligence alliance comprising the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, multiple U.S. intelligence officials told CBS News. They spoke under condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.

The officials said the directive classified all analysis and information related to the volatile Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations as “NOFORN,” or no foreign dissemination, meaning the information could not be shared with any other country or foreign nationals. The only information that could be shared was information that had already been publicly released. The memo also limited distribution of material regarding peace talks to within the agencies that created or originated the intelligence.

The memo does not seem to prevent the sharing of diplomatic information gathered by other means separate from the U.S. intelligence community, or military operational information unrelated to the talks — such as the details the U.S. shares with the Ukrainian military to aid in their defensive operations.

Contacted by CBS News, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred questions to the White House, which did not respond.

“In general, the value of the Fives Eyes intelligence partnership is that when we are making and they are making policy decisions, we can both augment each other’s intelligence and therefore know more about the plans, intentions, and capabilities of our adversaries,” explained Steven Cash, a former intelligence officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Homeland Security.

“Among the reasons for that sort of default is the expectation that we and the other four are all sitting on the same side of the table with some other adversary on the other side,” Cash said.

He said it’s important for the allies to have “a common intelligence picture” so policymakers and negotiators “can coordinate our positions and get the best deal we can, or fight the best war we can.” Cash is the executive director of The Steady State, a nonprofit organization made up of former U.S. intelligence and national security professionals and government officials concerned with threats to American democracy.

In March 1946, Winston Churchill spoke of the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. and the threat of the “Iron Curtain” that had “descended across the Continent.” The United States and Britain first forged their intelligence alliance in secret, signing an agreement to pool information as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Later, Canada, Australia and New Zealand joined the arrangement, transforming what began as a bilateral pact into the five-nation network that would come to be known as the Five Eyes.

But now, nearly 80 years later, some former U.S. government officials warn that the breadth of Gabbard’s order could undermine the intelligence community alliance — discouraging analysts from sharing insights and eroding trust among allies who have long relied on open exchanges to form a common picture of global threats and paths to successful negotiation.

Cash and CBS News national security contributor Sam Vinograd, a former homeland security official, said Five Eyes often has intelligence that helps the U.S. produce comprehensive intelligence assessments, especially about Russia, given the access Five Eyes partners have to other intelligence sources.

“Shutting our most trusted partners off from intelligence assessments could have a chilling effect on critical intelligence sharing if our partners believe they’re being shut out of key access — including on key matters in their region. They could decide to take similar steps toward the U.S.,” Vinograd said.

She added, “Policy-wise, if our Five Eyes partners think they are being shut off from key information. They could choose to create new structures and channels without us. A lack of full collaboration with our closest partners could lead them to discuss matters impacting our national security without our input and perspective.”

Still, other former intelligence officers contend Gabbard’s directive is commonplace within the U.S. intelligence community, and the criticism is much ado about nothing. They say both the U.S. and the other members of the intelligence alliance frequently withhold information from each other in diverging interest areas. Ezra Cohen, a Hudson Institute fellow who served as the acting undersecretary of defense for intelligence at the Pentagon, suggested that condemnation of Gabbard’s memo likely stems from a dislike of Trump administration policies and her leadership as director of national intelligence.

“There is a lot of information we do not share even with our Five Eyes partners, and it works in the reverse. There’s a lot of U.K. eyes-only material. There’s a lot of Australian eyes-only material,” said Cohen.

“Our interests are not always aligned with our Five Eyes partners,” Cohen said. “And where we have diverging interests, and it’s not just Ukraine, we absolutely mark things NOFORN.”

He admits it’s possible the directive could result in depriving the U.S. of information, but maintains these types of decisions have historically been the norm between all of the Five Eyes members. He said the claim that the directive represents “a chilling of the relationship” between the U.S. and Five Eyes seems “a little bit like faux outrage.”

As intelligence work and diplomatic efforts continue, largely out of the public eye, the war in Ukraine continues to take a deadly toll. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned Moscow Thursday for launching hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles in an attack overnight, “as if nothing had changed at all. As if there were no efforts by the world to stop this war.”

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has issued a directive barring the sharing of information on peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine with Washington’s allies, according to CBS News.

Sources say that in a memorandum dated July 20 and signed by Gabbard, intelligence agencies were instructed not to share such information with the Five Eyes alliance – a post-World War II intelligence partnership comprising the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Officials confirmed that the directive classifies all data related to the unstable Russia-Ukraine peace talks as NOFORN, meaning it cannot be disseminated abroad.

This effectively means that information cannot be shared with other countries or foreign nationals. Only information that has already been made public may be disseminated.

The memorandum also restricts the distribution of materials related to the peace negotiations by the agencies that prepared or provided the intelligence.

At the same time, the document does not appear to impede the sharing of diplomatic information collected through other means (outside of US intelligence) or prohibit the exchange of military operational data unrelated to the negotiations. Such information includes details that the US shares with Ukrainian forces to support defensive operations.

“Among the reasons for that sort of default is the expectation that we and the other four are all sitting on the same side of the table with some other adversary on the other side,” explained Steven Cash, a former CIA officer.

He added that allies must have a comprehensive intelligence picture so that policymakers and negotiators can coordinate their positions and strike the most advantageous deals – or conduct the most effective war.

Zelenskyy-Putin meeting

Last week, US President Donald Trump met with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska. On August 18, he hosted European leaders at the White House alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Ahead of the summit, there had been discussions about a potential trilateral meeting between Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump. However, following recent developments, the US president suggested that Zelenskyy and Putin meet first without his participation.

In recent days, the Ukrainian leader stated that any meeting with Putin should take place on neutral European ground – specifically in Austria, Switzerland, or Türkiye.

Following the Washington summit, Trump announced that he would begin working on arranging a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. Moreover, according to Trump, the Kremlin leader is reportedly ready for negotiations.

However, yesterday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Putin is willing to hold a bilateral meeting, but only if all issues requiring discussion at the highest level are thoroughly prepared.

Media reports indicate that Putin’s conditions for ending the war include the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In exchange, he is reportedly ready to freeze the front line in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions and withdraw Russian troops from small areas of Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

Zelenskyy recently stated that Ukraine is not prepared to cross several red lines regarding a potential territorial exchange with Russia. He also noted that it could take the adversary another four years to capture the Donbas.

When President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin sit down in Alaska Friday for their high-stakes meeting about the war in Ukraine, the two leaders will bring differing ideas about ending the war that Russia began over three years ago. At the same time, Ukraine will be watching from the outside with European allies, hoping that Mr. Trump is protecting their interests.

Their meetings are expected to be capped by a rare joint news conference with the two world leaders — the first such event of its kind since their 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Mr. Trump sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Expectations ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting

Mr. Trump has tried to lower expectations going into the meeting, telling reporters the day before, “all I want to do is set the table for the next meeting, which should happen shortly.” The subsequent meeting is an idea he has been floating this week, and he said it would also include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and perhaps other allies. The president raised the possibility that Zelenskyy could even join them in Alaska within a couple of days.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to talks with Putin as “a listening exercise” for Mr. Trump and said his goal “is to walk away with a better understanding of how we can end this war.”

There are a number of questions going into the summit — chief among them is what Russia wants, and whether there’s a way to reconcile its demands with what Ukraine wants. U.S. and Russian counterparts have been speaking, and Mr. Trump and Putin have had their own phone conversations.

FILE – President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin arrive for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018. Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

In March, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire proposal backed by the U.S., and months later, in May, when the Kremlin had still not accepted the terms, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was trying to figure out if Russia was just “tapping us along.”

By July, casualties were mounting in Ukraine as Russia stepped up its bombing campaign with hundreds of missile and drone strikes. Mr. Trump gave Putin a 50-day deadline to agree to a deal to end the war, and later shortened it to a 10-day deadline, threatening harsher tariffs and secondary sanctions. Dmitri Medvedev, the former president of Russia, responded by mocking Mr. Trump on X. “Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war,” he said, warning that it would not be “between Russia and Ukraine, but with [Trump’s] own country.”

But a day before the president’s 10-day deadline expired — and after Putin had met with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff — the Kremlin announced that Putin and Mr. Trump would meet.

Mr. Trump on Wednesday said there would be “very severe consequences” for Russia if it doesn’t agree to end the war after Friday’s meeting, though he declined to elaborate.

Zelenskyy and European partners met virtually with Mr. Trump Wednesday, after which Zelenskyy wrote on X: “Together with our partners, we supported the efforts of U.S. President Donald Trump to end the war, stop the killings, and achieve a just and lasting peace. I am grateful to the partners for our shared position: the path to peace.”

European leaders have been wary of the Trump-Putin meeting. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Wednesday of the summit, “The most important thing is that Europe convinces Donald Trump that one can’t trust Russia,” adding, “no one should think of recognizing Russia’s right to demarcate borders for its neighbors.” Zelenskyy won’t be there to represent Ukraine’s interests, and Mr. Trump has shown he’s sometimes reluctant to criticize Putin.

What Russia wants

Experts say Putin has several objectives that won’t be shared by the U.S. and Ukraine, and Mr. Trump must exercise caution.

Putin would love to see the U.S. discontinue its financial support for Ukraine, said Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power.

“He wants to sideline the power of the United States so that he can more effectively prey on Ukraine,” Bowman said, adding that at the same time, Putin will “try to make the invaded look like the villain.” While Mr. Trump aims to end the war Russia began, Putin is likely to try to seize on Mr. Trump’s desire for peace.

“He’s going to try to gain Trump’s support for a bad peace,” Bowman said, adding, “Some peace agreements are bad because they lead to more war.”

John Lough, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program and the British think-tank Chatham House, predicted that Russia would “put something in front of [Trump] that he will buy into and say, ‘This is a way out of the war, and I like that, and I’m now prepared to go lean on the Ukrainians again and the Europeans and we’ll get this over the line.'”

But Lough also believes that for Russia, the meeting is “high risk.”

“They may not get what they want, but they will at the very least be hoping that it guides the sort of next phase of the process of getting Ukraine to the table, and, I suppose, conducting the negotiations within a framework with which that comes,” Lough said.

Russia, Lough said, wants “to get the framework of the peace agreement settled and then talk about a ceasefire, whereas Ukraine, its allies and, to a degree, President Trump has said, ‘No, we start with a cease fire and then we build around that.'”

Map of Ukraine showing areas claimed by Russia as well as Russian territorial advances as of Aug. 12, 2025. Graphic by GUILLERMO RIVAS PACHECO,JEAN-MICHEL CORNU/AFP via Getty Images

Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland and former assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, thinks Putin could try to insert a wedge between the U.S. and its allies.

“He wants to get out of this meeting without any cost and to slice away at the American position and maybe draw Trump out so that there’s a gap between him and Zelenskyy, Trump and the Europeans,” Fried said in a press call Wednesday.

After Mr. Trump’s more skeptical comments about Putin since the meeting was scheduled, Fried said, “I am less worried about that than I was three days ago.”

Fried, who is now a fellow at the Atlantic Council, said that for Putin, a great outcome would be to “dazzle” Mr. Trump with a fake offer and to walk away with a big smile.

At talks in June, the Kremlin presented a memorandum offering Ukraine two options for a 30-day ceasefire, which could give some insight into Putin’s maximalist demands.

The first would have required Ukraine to withdraw its forces from four regions illegally annexed by Russia, but which Russia never fully controlled: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

The second option involved a number of conditions including a requirement that Ukraine wind down its military effort, cease receiving military aid, exclude any international military forces from its territory, lift martial law and then swiftly hold an election.

As part of a peace treaty, Russia said it would require international recognition of Russian sovereignty over some Ukrainian territories it currently occupies, including Donbas and Crimea, and a pledge by Ukraine not to join any military alliances — an end to its efforts to join NATO — or allow any foreign militaries to operate or have bases in its territory.

Russia also said it would want a cap on the strength of Ukraine’s armed forces and for Russian to become an official language in Ukraine.

Wendy Sherman, a former deputy secretary of state who has sat across from Putin before, said the Russian leader has no real interest in ending this war — he is simply “buying time.”

“This is President Putin’s meeting,” Sherman told CBS News Wednesday. “He really is in charge of this meeting. He asked for it. The president, I think, was flattered to have this meeting. But Putin has no interest in ending this war. He is very smart, he is very cagey.”

What Ukraine wants

Ukraine wants an end to Russia’s assault and its full withdrawal from their territory.

“There must be an honest end to the war. And it depends on Russia,” Zelenskyy said on social media earlier this month. “It is Russia that must end the war it started.”

Mr. Trump said earlier this week that a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine would involve “some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both.”

That prompted a response from Zelenskyy, who said Ukraine would not give up any of its territory to Russia. Ukraine’s constitution does not allow him to formally cede parts of the country.

“We will not reward Russia for what it has perpetrated,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post last weekend. “The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will deviate from this — and no one will be able to. Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz following a virtual meeting with European leaders and President Trump on Aug. 13, 2025 in Berlin. Omer Messinger / Getty Images

Despite such statements, John Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said Zelenskyy has demonstrated he’s willing to compromise.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Zelenskyy understands that territorial concessions may be required to get a durable peace,” Herbst said.

Another major concern is whether Putin, with his deep knowledge of Ukraine, could try to manipulate Mr. Trump, said former intelligence official Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who specialized in Russian affairs.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova told CBS News that “we all understand the reality on the ground, and we are ready to discuss how to end this war.” She added, “Let’s stop the killings, and let’s get to diplomacy.”

Ukraine and Russia’s troubled history

Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union before voting for independence in 1991.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the NATO alliance expanded eastward, adding former Soviet republics including Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, and it established a close partnership with Ukraine. In 2008, the alliance declared its intention for Ukraine to join NATO at some point in the future.

Putin has said on numerous occasions that he views NATO’s expansion as a threat to Russia. He has also said that he believes Ukraine to be part of Russia politically, culturally and linguistically.

Some Ukrainians, primarily in eastern areas, are Russian-speaking and feel more closely aligned with Russia than the nation of Ukraine. But the majority of Ukrainians speak Ukrainian, feel a deep patriotic connection to Ukraine and have favored developing closer ties to Europe.

Widespread protests erupted in Ukraine in 2014 when the pro-Russian president at the time refused to sign an EU association agreement. The public outrage forced him from office — an apparent victory for Ukrainians who favored closer ties to Europe. But shortly after, Russia annexed Crimea, a peninsula that was internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, and the Kremlin supported a pro-Russian separatist rebellion in Ukraine’s east.

In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, attacking cities across the country, including the capital, Kyiv. Some expected Russia to quickly take over, but Ukrainians fought hard to defend themselves, Russian gains largely stagnated behind front lines in the east, and the war has raged on ever since.