America's 'irritating' leaks and what it means for US relations

There's a strong sense in Washington that the Brits are livid.

Amber Rudd's comments about the 'irritating' leaks are a strong focus across the US TV news networks.

:: LIVE: The latest updates on the Manchester attack

:: Manchester bomber linked to key UK IS recruiter

Intelligence sharing after a terror attack is of course not in any way unusual. It is expected.

Britain and America take pride in the strength of that relationship. What isn't normal is the leaking of that information .

The leaks report that the attacker's family had warned authorities about him and that he may have had help making the bomb.

:: Bomber's brother knew of terror plans

:: Manchester bomber's movements 'caught on CCTV'

There are also now photographs in the New York Times. None of this is inconsistent with the kind of information you would expect in the aftermath of a US incident.

In the wake of a mass shooting, for example, details about the perpetrators comes thick and fast.

The argument here is that this intelligence isn't the US authorities' to share and the UK has the right to control its own flow of information.

:: The victims of the Manchester terror attack

:: Ariana Grande cancels UK shows after terror attack

This will have only compounded trust issues that stemmed from reports surrounding Donald Trump's loose-lipped conversation with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during their now infamous oval office meeting.

Behind closed doors, the UK will undoubtedly be seeking strong reassurances that it can still trust this closest of allies.