Interpretation from David Ignatius @ WaPo, who has been publishing spook leaks for decades:

The trust underlying the American-British spy partnership is fraying

May 25

The British-American intelligence partnership is so deeply intertwined that it will certainly survive the furor this week over leaks about the British police investigation of Monday’s bombing in Manchester. But in angry British statements, you can see the trust that underlies the intelligence relationship starting to fray.

Intelligence sharing between the two countries is hard-wired, especially in electronic surveillance. A British official explained recently that the exchange is so automatic, it could be altered only by rewriting computer code that links U.S. and British systems, along with those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the espionage alliance known as the “Five Eyes.”

Britain prides itself on its ability to steal and keep secrets, and the Manchester flap is only the latest in a string of American indiscretions that have infuriated British spymasters. Other recent flash points included the Obama administration’s leak of details about a British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the suggestion by President Trump’s spokesman in March that GCHQ, Britain’s signals-intelligence service, helped “wiretap” Trump, which GCHQ dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” in an unusual public statement.

The British complaints about leaks will bolster the Trump administration’s argument that such unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information are the real national-security problem, not the allegations of collusion between the Trump team and Russian intelligence. The Russia probe is probably unstoppable now that Robert S. Mueller III has been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter. But the push for more aggressive Justice Department investigation of leaks started when Trump took office and will gain momentum now.

British officials argued that the Manchester police photographs that appeared in the New York Times were an unusually specific use [....]