A US official says the idea of cutting off intelligence-sharing with Ukraine is being discussed inside the White House, Semafor reports

Suspension of intelligence-sharing has been used before as leverage in a pressure campaign rather than as a permanent rupture, and episodes of this kind have tended to follow a sequence: report or leak, denial or qualification, then partial or full confirmation, with the substance often narrower than the first headline. The operative distinction is between a pause in specific feeds, such as targeting support, and a broader cutoff of the relationship; the former is a negotiating instrument and has historically been reversible, the latter signals a structural shift in the US posture toward the conflict. The channel runs through Ukrainian battlefield effectiveness and thus the bargaining position in any ceasefire or minerals and security discussions, rather than directly through any listed asset. Past episodes where US support for Kyiv was conditioned or suspended saw the follow-ons matter more than the initial report: formal confirmation, allied efforts to backfill, and any linkage to talks. Worth noting is that the sourcing is a single official describing internal discussion, so the tell is whether the White House confirms, narrows, or denies, and whether European capitals are asked to compensate.