The Claim: A Deliberate Sting to Catch Leaks
French media and commentators recently circulated a startling claim: Ukrainian and French intelligence supposedly conspired to feed false classified information to the Trump administration as a test, suspecting it would be passed to Moscow. This allegation originated from Vincent Crouzet, a former officer of France’s DGSE (external intelligence), during a January 15, 2026 broadcast on France’s LCI news channel. According to Crouzet’s account, Ukraine’s military intelligence (GUR) “intentionally provided false strategic data to American agencies” to see if it would end up in Russian hands. In other words, a “canary trap” was set: unique false intel was given to Washington to identify any leaks.
Crouzet claimed the trap worked – the bogus information “quickly surfaced” via Russian channels, apparently confirming a leak at the U.S. end. Independent reports (notably a MeidasTouch Network update) echoed that French intelligence, in coordination with Ukraine, planted high-level false intel with Trump’s team, and it indeed reached Kremlin circles. If true, this suggests someone in the Trump administration (or U.S. intelligence community under it) relayed secret data to the Russian government, validating allied fears.
Evidence of Leaks to Russia
No declassified documents have been released to directly prove this specific sting operation. The key evidence cited is the outcome of the test: Russia acting on or broadcasting the fake information. Allied intelligence reportedly detected the dummy intel being “used by Russian forces” soon after, implying it had been forwarded from Washington. However, the exact nature of the false data and how it surfaced publicly remain undisclosed. No official U.S. admission or captured communication confirming the handoff has been made public. Thus, the claim currently rests on insider testimony and media assertions rather than hard documentation.
That said, the allegation fits a broader pattern that concerned U.S. allies. Notably, during Trump’s first term, he did share highly sensitive intelligence with Russian officials in an unusual way. In May 2017, Trump revealed to Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador information about an ISIS bomb plot that had been obtained via Israel – “Trump revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies,” an intelligence official told The Washington Post at the time. (Trump’s NSA H.R. McMaster initially denied wrongdoing, but later conceded Trump was being “played” by Putin.) This incident was widely reported and alarmed allied agencies. It established precedent that Trump or his circle might mishandle secrets, lending plausibility to concerns of leaks in his second term.
Indeed, by 2025 (after Trump returned to office), multiple outlets reported that Western partners were growing wary of sharing intel with Washington. NBC News sources indicated that Israel and the “Five Eyes” countries quietly considered limiting what they give the U.S., fearing Trump’s rapport with Putin could lead to leaks. In one documented example, **the Netherlands’ military intelligence chief acknowledged they now “weigh carefully” what Russia-related information to share and *“simply no longer share certain things”. This confirmed at least one NATO ally scaled back intelligence cooperation with the U.S. out of trust concerns. Such caution from partners provides circumstantial support that the risk of leaks was taken seriously – though it doesn’t itself prove the specific French/Ukrainian sting occurred.
Did Trump Officials Pass Along the False Intelligence?
If Crouzet’s story is accurate, then yes – someone on the U.S. side ultimately conveyed the test information to the Kremlin. The phrasing that the fake intel “had been transferred to Russia and subsequently used by Russian troops” was even cited in social-media chatter about the LCI report. This implies the Russians acted on the tip on the battlefield, meaning they treated it as genuine. Such an outcome could only happen if a U.S. official or contact leaked it to them.
However, we have no direct public proof identifying the leaker inside the Trump administration. The situation is, by design, murky: if a “mole” was detected via a canary trap, that would be a tightly held counterintelligence matter. As of now, no whistleblower has come forward and no U.S. agency has confirmed the episode. We also have no reports of Trump himself personally handing intel to Putin in this timeframe (beyond the known 2017 Oval Office incident). It’s possible the leak occurred at an intelligence liaison level rather than by Trump directly. In summary, the claim asserts Trump’s team did funnel the bogus intel to Moscow, but hard evidence remains internal and thus far unavailable.
Reactions from NATO, EU, and Five Eyes Allies
U.S. Allies have responded with alarm and adaptive measures – though largely behind closed doors. Following the alleged leak, France and other European partners “effectively cut the United States out of critical intelligence flows” on Ukraine, according to the MeidasTouch summary of events. In fact, President Emmanuel Macron publicly stated that France has now overtaken the U.S. as Kyiv’s primary intelligence supplier, providing “two-thirds” of all external intel Ukraine receives. “Where Ukraine was overwhelmingly dependent on American intelligence a year ago, two-thirds is today provided by France,” Macron said in a New Year 2026 address. While he did not explicitly mention the leak issue, his remarks strongly imply a diminished U.S. role in sensitive support. French officials have hinted this shift is partly due to Washington’s policy choices (e.g. a brief suspension of intel-sharing in early 2025) and partly due to trust: “This change seals the divorce between Ukrainian and American intelligence,” one LCI commentator observed.
Other NATO members and Five Eyes partners have likewise been warily adjusting. As noted, the Dutch intelligence service now sometimes withholds information from Washington “on a case-by-case basis” since Trump’s return. In early 2025, NBC News reported allies like the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were debating if the U.S. should be deemed an “untrustworthy confidant” – an extraordinary scenario between Five Eyes members. The mere fact this was contemplated underscores how seriously the possibility of U.S. leaks to Russia was taken.
On the U.S. side, the Trump administration itself took controversial steps that rattled allies. In July 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard secretly ordered U.S. agencies to stop sharing any info on Russia–Ukraine peace talks with our closest allies, marking it NOFORN (no foreign distribution). This cut out the Five Eyes and others from key intelligence on negotiations. When CBS News exposed this memo, the DNI’s spokesperson publicly denied it, insisting *“U.S. intelligence-sharing relationships with our allies have never been stronger”*. The mixed messaging – a behind-the-scenes freeze versus an official rosy assurance – did little to ease allied anxiety. NATO and EU officials generally kept their criticisms private, but there were signs of their disquiet: for example, Germany and Canada warned that Trump’s aggressive unilateral moves (like threats to annex Greenland) were undermining trust and even raised the specter of conflict with the U.S. if he went too far. In essence, the trans-Atlantic alliance has been straining under these intelligence and strategic rifts.
Importantly, Ukraine’s government and intelligence leaders flatly reject the idea that they planted false intel or lost faith in U.S. partners. On January 18, 2026, Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR) issued statements refuting the French media story as a “fake” spread by Kremlin-linked disinformation networks. According to sources quoted by Ukrainian news agency UNN, *“the published information has no objective basis or real grounds”*. The GUR emphasizes that cooperation with Western intelligence continues as normal, founded on professionalism and shared goals. Likewise, Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation denounced the rumor as a “deliberate conspiracy theory…voiced in foreign media without any facts to back it up,” explicitly saying claims of an “inevitable breakdown” in US–Ukrainian intel ties are false. “In reality, Ukraine continues to cooperate with its allies and the exchange of information continues,” the Center affirmed. In short, official Kyiv is publicly maintaining that it trusts the U.S. and did not attempt a stunt to entrap Trump’s team – and suggests this narrative benefits Russian propagandists by sowing distrust within the alliance.
NATO institutions themselves have not commented publicly on the specifics of this incident. The alliance’s public line remains that “we stand unified” and that intelligence sharing among members is robust. Any internal NATO discussions of U.S. information security would likely remain classified. The EU, too, has made no official statement on these intelligence-leak allegations. European leaders, however, have implicitly addressed the atmosphere of mistrust. For example, EU officials coordinated a new “European-led” security assistance framework for Ukraine in late 2025, signaling Europe’s willingness to act independently of U.S. leadership if needed. While not a direct rebuke, it reflects the shifting dynamics partly born from uncertainty over U.S. reliability.
Assessment of the Evidence
Concrete, verifiable evidence for this alleged French-Ukrainian sting operation is scarce. The claim relies on an ex-intelligence officer’s word and has been amplified by media, but no NATO or Five Eyes agency has confirmed it. On the contrary, Ukrainian and U.S. officials have issued on-record denials. As of now there are no known declassified documents or whistleblower leaks proving that Trump or his aides passed along doctored intel to Russia. In the absence of such proof, one must treat the story with caution. Analysts note that this could even be an information warfare tactic by Russia – turning allied suspicions into a self-fulfilling wedge between Ukraine and the West.
What is well-documented is the atmosphere of distrust that surrounded Trump’s handling of secrets. Multiple reputable reports confirm that U.S. allies scaled down intelligence sharing due to fear of leaks, and that Trump’s overtures to Putin made foreign security services nervous. There is also the undeniable historical case of Trump mishandling classified info with Russia in 2017. These facts lend general credibility to the possibility of a “leak test” scenario.
However, without further evidence, we cannot conclusively say such a sting happened or succeeded. No NATO or EU body has publicly corroborated that France or Ukraine set a trap for the White House. If it did occur, any proof may remain classified for years. For now, we have a stark divergence in narratives: Western commentators and anonymous sources painting a picture of breached trust and extraordinary countermeasures, versus official denials from both Kyiv and Washington that any deliberate deceit or breakdown in intel partnership has occurred.
In summary, there are credible reports of strained intelligence relations – even partial intel cut-offs – due to fears that the Trump administration might share secrets with the Kremlin. A French security expert’s story that Ukraine (with French awareness) planted false intel and caught Team Trump leaking it to Putin has been widely discussed. This claim has not been verified by primary evidence, and Ukrainian officials vehemently call it a baseless fake. While it aligns with allies’ well-founded mistrust of Trump’s Russia ties, no concrete documentation from NATO, the EU, or Five Eyes has emerged to confirm the sting or the leak. In fact, a NATO member’s intelligence chief admitted only that they are very careful now – sometimes opting not to share certain Russian-related intel with Washington.
Absent further proof (e.g. declassified communications or a whistleblower account), this story remains an unconfirmed intelligence-world anecdote. It underscores the unprecedented lack of trust between Washington and allied spy agencies during Trump’s tenure, but should be regarded with healthy skepticism until more evidence comes to light. All sides agree on one point: safeguarding sensitive information is paramount. Whether or not a bait operation was actually run, the episode has already had real effects – pushing Europe to take the lead in Ukraine intelligence support and prompting both allies and U.S. officials to rethink how much they share. The ultimate truth of the “false intel test” may only be revealed with time, if ever, as more records become available. For now, we have a cloud of claims and denials, with the verdict not yet definitively proven.
