Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

espionage

Carney’s Chief of Staff, Marco Mendicino, Warned of Beijing’s Vancouver Election Interference in ’22—Did Nothing

Published

17 minute read

Sam Cooper

The Bureau’s review of national security records suggests that despite this high-level awareness, no public action—and likely no significant action at all—was taken to mitigate PRC interference before or after the Vancouver election. This mirrors what critics describe as a broader pattern of inaction in the Trudeau government’s response to threats against the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

Newly appointed Prime Minister Mark Carney’s chief of staff, former Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, received an explosive “restricted distribution report” several days after Vancouver’s 2022 mayoral election, following his department’s apparent inaction on repeated warnings from CSIS months earlier about Beijing’s alleged efforts to unseat incumbent Kennedy Stewart and elect a new Chinese-Canadian candidate, federal documents obtained by The Bureau indicate.

Public Safety Canada records—including an October 21, 2022, Canadian Eyes Only brief distributed to Mendicino and then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national security advisor Jody Thomas—confirm that in May 2022, CSIS provided Stewart with a “defensive briefing” on electoral interference by the People’s Republic of China. These documents shed new light on Stewart’s subsequent claims that CSIS informed him they had escalated concerns to Ottawa, only to be met with indifference.

One of the redacted intelligence documents, a March 2023 CSIS Issues Management Brief—prepared for Trudeau’s Privy Council Office—addresses Stewart’s explosive statement in a CBC interview that month, in which he alleged that CSIS officers told him: “We’ve been sending reports up the chain and nobody’s paying any attention.”

Mendicino and his predecessor, former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, have taken up key positions in Prime Minister Carney’s nascent administration, which has pitched itself as an emergency cabinet formed to respond to escalating tensions with Washington. President Donald Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, citing their alleged failures to stem fentanyl trafficking that he says is devastating American communities.

Yet, as Carney’s government navigates an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape—marked by rising tensions and the growing risk of armed conflict between Washington and Beijing—new intelligence records analyzed exclusively by The Bureau reveal troubling national security vulnerabilities that persist from Trudeau’s regime into Carney’s.

The documents suggest that the same passive approach to Beijing’s interference—critics say characterized Bill Blair’s tenure as public safety minister, particularly in the months-long delay in 2021 of a national security warrant targeting a Liberal powerbroker and potentially implicating members of Trudeau’s caucus—persisted under Mendicino.

Public Safety Canada, Marco Mendicino, and Prime Minister Carney’s office did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

Among the newly reviewed records obtained by The Bureau, the October 21, 2022, post-Vancouver election report stands out for its high classification, restricted circulation, and sensitive content, highlighting the severity of threats in British Columbia—a key hub for Beijing’s United Front election interference and diaspora repression operations.

Labeled “Caution: Restricted Distribution Report,” the document explicitly states, “This report contains sensitive information. Distribution must be confined exclusively to,” Mendicino, his deputy minister and chief of staff, and Trudeau’s national security advisor.

While much of the record remains heavily censored, key excerpts reveal its significance.

The document explicitly references PRC electoral interference, detailing Beijing’s long history of mobilizing support for preferred candidates at all levels of government.” It further warns that the PRC “is known to target and/or leverage family as part of its FI (foreign interference) and other threat activity.”

“The Minister of Public Safety is scheduled to meet with [redacted] team on Monday, October 24, 2022,” it says. “CSIS is providing pertinent information regarding [redacted] for the Minister’s attention in advance of the meeting.”

A related intelligence report, dated March 30, 2023, and obtained through access-to-information requests, details how Ottawa internally handled Stewart’s post-election allegations that warnings from CSIS’s Vancouver China desk were ignored. The briefing states:

“Former Vancouver Mayor, Kennedy STEWART, told CBC News that when he was interviewed by CSIS in May 2022, CSIS told him: “‘We’ve been sending reports up the chain and nobody’s paying any attention,’ thus being the ‘reason to approach’ him.”

While a series of redacted paragraphs prevents full confirmation of this allegation, the visible portions of the report confirm that Stewart was briefed by CSIS. More importantly, the document underscores the extensive scope of such briefings across Canada, revealing the breadth of China’s foreign interference activities—and, in hindsight, the Liberal government’s failure to act until media exposure forced scrutiny of this and other alleged election interference cases in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

“The officers informed STEWART that, because CSIS assesses the threat posed by foreign interference is growing, CSIS is increasingly carrying out this kind of outreach across the country,” the document states. “Similar briefings are being offered to elected officials and candidates at all levels of government—federal, provincial, and municipal—across the political spectrum.”

The document appears to partially support claims that CSIS officers in Vancouver were frustrated by Ottawa’s inaction on their intelligence warnings—a concern echoed by Toronto-based China desk officers regarding Bill Blair’s handling of a national security warrant in 2021. This aligns with evidence presented to Ottawa’s Hogue Commission, which examined allegations that Trudeau’s government failed to act on CSIS’s urgent warnings about China.

Stewart’s case only surfaced after reporting by The Globe and Mail on leaked intelligence documents, which The Bureau has also reviewed.

The Globe’s reporting revealed that CSIS documents showed China’s then-consul-general in Vancouver, Tong Xiaoling, sought to mobilize the Chinese diaspora to support a specific Chinese-Canadian candidate in the 2022 municipal election. According to CSIS intelligence, Tong also aimed to assess and potentially “groom” individuals who would be favorable to Beijing’s interests.

Following The Globe’s report, Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim reacted angrily, asserting that claims his campaign had benefited from Chinese consulate interference would not have been made “if I was a Caucasian.” BC Premier David Eby backed Sim, calling on CSIS to provide clarity on the allegations.

A January 2022 document, cited in The Globe’s reporting and also obtained in full by The Bureau, says that China’s Consul General in Vancouver stated that they needed” to rally Chinese diaspora voters in Vancouver’s 2022 mayoral election “to come out and elect a specific Chinese-Canadian candidate,” because “the candidate will rely on those votes.”

What The Globe didn’t report, however, is the CSIS record’s allegation that Tong had previously interfered.

“This report demonstrates CG Tong’s continued interest in involving herself in Canadian electoral processes to benefit the PRC,” states the document obtained by The Bureau.

This could be significant, as a related October 2022 CSIS Intelligence Assessment—obtained exclusively by The Bureau—appears to reference the Vancouver election without naming the city or specific individuals. The report states:

“CSIS intelligence from November 2021 and late April/early May 2022 found a People’s Republic of China consulate was clandestinely supporting a particular mayoral candidate in an upcoming municipal election.”

The assessment goes further, detailing how “the Consulate has mobilized the leadership of three co-opted Chinese-Canadian community groups to provide material and financial support for this candidate.”

In what may be the most damning passage, the document states:

“It is noteworthy that the PRC Consulate supported this same mayoral candidate in the 2018 municipal election and used the same community groups to clandestinely channel this support.”

Stewart, who narrowly defeated Ken Sim in Vancouver’s 2018 mayoral election before losing his re-election bid to Sim by a decisive margin, has suggested that PRC-backed actors with influence in Vancouver’s real estate sector seemingly targeted his campaign by undermining his fundraising efforts.

In interviews with The Bureau, Stewart said that in late May 2022, CSIS warned him that China was likely to interfere in Vancouver’s upcoming municipal election and that Beijing-controlled or influenced Chinese-language media outlets in British Columbia were instrumental.

The Bureau’s analysis of intelligence documents obtained through an access-to-information request on the Vancouver election supports Stewart’s account. A March 21, 2022, CSIS Intelligence Assessment detailed the PRC’s “sophisticated, pervasive, and persistent” electoral interference efforts, warning that Beijing’s activities “undermine Canadian sovereignty” and that PRC-controlled media could “exacerbate the spread of misinformation.”

“A large number of Chinese speakers of foreign citizenship—and of some politicians seeking their votes in liberal democracies—regularly use social media platforms that are subject to PRC censorship (i.e., WeChat),” the CSIS assessment states, adding that “WeChat’s design as a platform can exacerbate the spread of misinformation.”

“The Political Chain”

Back in March 2023, in an interview with CBC regarding the Globe and Mail’s report on the Vancouver election, Stewart was asked whether the alleged comments from CSIS briefers in May 2022 suggested inaction at a level higher than CSIS leadership in Ottawa.

“They went over the basics but also asked a lot of questions about what we were noticing,” Stewart said. “When I asked them why they were briefing me, they said, ‘We’ve been sending reports up the chain and nobody’s paying any attention.’ So they thought somebody should know.”

The CBC interviewer pressed him on the implications:

“Sending reports up the chain, but nobody paying attention. That’s exactly what they said to you? Did they give you a sense of where the chain was—whether this was the CSIS chain or the political chain? Do you have any idea what they meant by that?”

Stewart’s response underscored the tight-lipped nature of the briefing.

“I don’t. It was highly unusual. I mean, I was a mayor of a city—why was CSIS briefing me? That’s for them to answer.”

CSIS did not respond by deadline for this story on Tuesday afternoon.

Meanwhile, other documents reviewed for this story show that a May 17, 2022, CSIS Issues Management Brief, labeled “Secret,” flagged concerns about PRC interference and was distributed to Public Safety Canada. It stated that CSIS would engage officials and candidates likely to be targets of clandestine foreign interference. While redacted, the timing and description align with Stewart’s recollection of his CSIS briefing.

Four months before Vancouver’s election, a classified eight-page document dated June 15, 2022, was circulated among a select group of Ottawa’s top national security and intelligence officials, including Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino. Though entirely redacted, the document reveals— in hindsight—that the officials receiving this briefing held direct oversight of national security and foreign interference mitigation and were responsible for informing Prime Minister Trudeau of serious concerns. Mendicino, now Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Mark Carney, was the principal recipient due to his oversight of CSIS and the RCMP. “Please share with Minister Mendicino,” the document states, instructing his office to provide feedback via a secure form.

Another recipient, Dan Costello, Senior Foreign and Defence Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, had direct responsibility for national security coordination at the highest political level. Likewise, Jody Thomas, as Trudeau’s National Security and Intelligence Advisor, was responsible for coordinating intelligence and briefing the Prime Minister. Rob Stewart, then Deputy Minister of Public Safety, played a key role in intelligence briefings on foreign interference. Also included in the circulation was Janice Charette, then Clerk of the Privy Council and Canada’s highest-ranking civil servant, now reportedly leading Mark Carney’s transition team. Nathalie Drouin, Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, was another key figure involved in intelligence and security policy. David Morrison, then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, oversaw diplomatic intelligence related to China’s activities in Canada.

The Bureau’s review of national security records suggests that despite this high-level awareness, no public action—and likely no significant action at all—was taken to mitigate PRC interference before or after the Vancouver election. This mirrors what critics describe as a broader pattern of inaction in the Trudeau government’s response to threats against the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

Meanwhile, a related 2023 CSIS Intelligence Assessment, obtained by The Bureau through access to information, confirms that the PRC poses the greatest national security threat to Canada, engaging in espionage, foreign interference, economic infiltration, and cyber operations. The assessment details China’s strategic efforts to exploit trade and investment ties, shape Canadian economic policy, and target government and corporate sectors for intelligence collection. It also underscores that China’s cyber operations are part of an aggressive geopolitical strategy, undeterred by repeated public exposure of its activities.

Beyond China, other states identified as engaging in foreign interference and cyber threats include Russia, India, and Iran—though none match the PRC in the scale and impact of their activities against Canada.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Censorship Industrial Complex

How the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism

Published on

Sonia Elijah investigates

Sonia Elijah's avatar Sonia Elijah

 

“Big Brother is watching you.” These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.

Under the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance, a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War. Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.

Sonia Elijah investigates is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The UK’s digital dragnet

The United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly-secret mass surveillance programme, code-named Tempora, operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013, thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”

Following that, is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.

Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA) further empower authorities to demand backdoors in encrypted apps like WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined “harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch, a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and harmful material.” Implemented in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated content forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines. By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over fundamental freedoms.

Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech, with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”

In late September, Imgur (an image-hosting platform popular for memes and shared media) made the decision to block UK users rather than comply with the OSA’s stringent regulations. This underscores the chilling effect such laws can have on digital freedom.

The act’s stated purpose is to make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.” However, critics argue it’s a brazen power grab by the UK government to increase censorship and surveillance, all the while masquerading as a noble crusade to “protect” users.

Another pivotal development is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent in June. This wide-ranging legislation streamlines data protection rules to boost economic growth and public services but at the cost of privacy safeguards. It allows broader data sharing among government agencies and private entities, including for AI-driven analytics. For instance, it enables “smart data schemes” where personal information from banking, energy, and telecom sectors can be accessed more easily, seemingly for consumer benefits like personalized services—but raising fears of unchecked profiling.

Cybersecurity enhancements further expand the UK’s pervasive surveillance measures. The forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, announced in the July 2024 King’s Speech and slated for introduction by year’s end, expands the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations to critical infrastructure, mandating real-time threat reporting and government access to systems. This builds on existing tools like facial recognition technology, deployed extensively in public spaces. In 2025, trials in cities like London have integrated AI cameras that scan crowds in real-time, linking to national databases for instant identification—evoking a biometric police state.

Source: BBC News

The New York Times reported: “British authorities have also recently expanded oversight of online speech, tried weakening encryption and experimented with artificial intelligence to review asylum claims. The actions, which have accelerated under Prime Minister Keir Starmer with the goal of addressing societal problems, add up to one of the most sweeping embraces of digital surveillance and internet regulation by a Western democracy.”

Compounding this, UK police arrest over 30 people a day for “offensive” tweets and online messages, per The Timesoften under vague laws, fuelling justifiable fears of Orwell’s thought police.

Yet, of all the UK’s digital dystopian measures, none has ignited greater fury than Prime Minister Starmer’s mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID—a smartphone-based system effectively turning every citizen into a tracked entity.

First announced on September 4, as a tool to “tackle illegal immigration and strengthen border security,” but rapidly the Brit Card’s scope ballooned through function-creep to envelop everyday essentials like welfare, banking and public access. These IDs, stored on smartphones containing sensitive data like photos, names, dates of birth, nationalities, and residency status, are sold “as the front door to all kinds of everyday tasks,” a vision championed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change— and echoed by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall MP in her October 13 parliamentary speech.

Source: TheBritishIntel

This digital shackles system has sparked fierce resistance across the UK. A scathing letter, led by independent MP Rupert Lowe and endorsed by nearly 40 MPs from diverse parties, denounces the government’s proposed mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID as “dangerous, intrusive, and profoundly un-British.” Conservative MP David Davis issued a stark warning, declaring that such systems “are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people.” On X, Davis amplified his critique, citing a £14m fine imposed on Capita after hackers breached pension savers’ personal data, writing: “This is another perfect example of why the government’s digital ID cards are a terrible idea.” By early October, a petition opposing the proposal had garnered over 2.8 million signatures, reflecting widespread public outcry. The government, however, dismissed these objections, stating, “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to address illegal migration, streamline access to government services, and improve efficiency. We will consult on details soon.”

Canada’s surveillance surge

Across the Atlantic, Canada’s surveillance surge under Prime Minister Mark Carney—former Bank of England head and World Economic Forum board member—mirrors the UK’s dystopian trajectory. Carney, with his globalist agenda, has overseen a slew of bills that prioritize “security” over sovereignty. Take Bill C-2An Act to amend the Customs Act, introduced June 17, 2025, which enables warrantless data access at borders and sharing with U.S. authorities via CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) pacts—essentially handing Canadian citizens’ digital lives to foreign powers. Despite public backlash prompting proposed amendments in October, its core—enhanced monitoring of transactions and exports—remains ripe for abuse.

Complementing this, Bill C-8, first introduced June 18, 2025, amends the Telecommunications Act to impose cybersecurity mandates on critical sectors like telecoms and finance. It empowers the government to issue secret orders compelling companies to install backdoors or weaken encryption, potentially compromising user security. These orders can mandate the cutoff of internet and telephone services to specified individuals without the need for a warrant or judicial oversight, under the vague premise of securing the system against “any threat.”

Opposition to this bill has been fierce. In a parliamentary speech Canada’s Conservative MP Matt Strauss, decried the bill’s sections 15.1 and 15.2 as granting “unprecedented, incredible power” to the government. He warned of a future where individuals could be digitally exiled—cut off from email, banking, and work—without explanation or recourse, likening it to a “digital gulag.”

Source: Video shared by Andrew Bridgen

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and privacy advocates have echoed these concerns, arguing that the bill’s ambiguous language and lack of due process violate fundamental Charter rights, including freedom of expression, liberty, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Bill C-8 complements the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), first introduced in February 2024, which demanded platforms purge content like child exploitation and hate speech within 24 hours, risking censorship with vague “harmful” definitions. Inspired by the UK’s OSA and EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), C-63 collapsed amid fierce backlash for its potential to enable censorship, infringe on free speech, and lack of due process. The CCF and Pierre Poilievre, calling it “woke authoritarianism,” led a 2024 petition with 100,000 signatures. It died during Parliament’s January 2025 prorogation after Justin Trudeau’s resignation.

These bills build on an alarming precedent: during the COVID era, Canada’s Public Health Agency admitted to tracking 33 million devices during lockdown—nearly the entire population—under the pretext of public health, a blatant violation exposed only through persistent scrutiny. The Communications Security Establishment (CSE), empowered by the longstanding Bill C-59, continues bulk metadata collection, often without adequate oversight. These measures are not isolated; they stem from a deeper rot, where pandemic-era controls have been normalized into everyday policy.

Canada’s Digital Identity Program, touted as a “convenient” tool for seamless access to government services, emulates the UK’s Brit Card and aligns with UN Agenda 2030’s SDG 16.9. It remains in active development and piloting phases, with full national rollout projected for 2027–2028.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Orwell’s 1984 warns we must urgently resist this descent into digital authoritarianism—through petitions, protests, and demands for transparency—before a Western Great Firewall is erected, replicating China’s stranglehold that polices every keystroke and thought.

If you find value in the work I do, please consider a paid subscription or make a one-off donation.

Share

Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates

Buy me a coffee

Continue Reading

espionage

“Suitcase of Cash” and Secret Meeting Deepen Britain’s Beijing Espionage Crisis

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Britain’s most consequential espionage scandal in a generation has narrowed on Keir Starmer’s inner cabinet after The Sunday Times revealed that alleged Chinese agent Christopher Berry was intercepted at Heathrow Airport with a “suitcase full of cash” — and that senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald, held a closed-door meeting, allegedly discussing that advancing the case would harm relations with Beijing, weeks before prosecutors abandoned the insider-threat file.

The revelations, combined with an explosive Opposition letter from Kemi Badenoch and a rare diplomatic intervention from Washington, have plunged Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government into the most serious national-security controversy of its tenure — one now shaking both Westminster and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Not since the Kim Philby affair and the exposure of the Cambridge Spy Ring has a British government been so roiled by allegations of insider compromise and appeasement toward a hostile foreign state.

As The Sunday Times reported, Christopher Berry — a 33-year-old academic from Oxfordshire — was stopped under the Terrorism and Border Security Act after a February 2023 flight from China. Police seized £4,000 in cash, believed to have been supplied by his Chinese handler, codenamed “Alex,” linked to the Ministry of State Security.

A witness statement tabled in Parliament last week indicated that Berry funnelled real-time political intelligence through his MSS handler to one of Beijing’s senior leaders, all collected from a former Chinese teaching colleague — a Parliamentary researcher with deep access to senior Conservative MPs. Beijing reportedly viewed those MPs as a strategic threat, fearing that if they rose to higher office they would adopt a far stricter stance toward China’s geopolitical ambitions.

Though Berry was not detained at the time, the incident became central to the espionage case later dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service when the Starmer government declined to certify that China posed an “ongoing threat to national security” — a legal requirement under the Official Secrets Act.

The Sunday Times also revealed that Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins, the government’s sole witness, privately acknowledged that the decision not to describe China as an “ongoing threat” was “political.” The paper further disclosed that Jonathan Powell — a former banking executive who rose to become Starmer’s National Security Adviser — chaired a meeting on September 1 attended by Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald and MI5 Director-General Sir Ken McCallum, in which “the general theme of discussion was how the UK’s relationship with China was going to be damaged by this case.”

If accurate, that account directly contradicts Starmer’s assurance to Parliament that “no minister or special adviser was involved.” The implication — that Britain’s most senior national-security officials were weighing diplomatic consequences while an active espionage prosecution was still underway — has intensified accusations that the case was derailed by political interference rather than evidentiary weakness.

Within hours of the Sunday Times story, Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch posted a letter to X accusing Keir Starmer of misleading Parliament and concealing ministerial involvement in the case’s collapse.

Framing the letter, Badenoch sought to explain the rapidly evolving affair to a wider audience. “I don’t blame you if you’ve struggled to follow the China spying case engulfing Parliament. Even MPs are finding it hard to keep up with a story that seems to change by the hour,” she wrote. “I suspect many fair-minded people have assumed this story can’t contain much. It seems too implausible for the government to have deliberately let off people who were accused of spying on MPs. But the story is truly astonishing. The layers of it have unravelled over the past few weeks like something from a spy novel.”

In the letter itself, Badenoch demands full disclosure of all correspondence, meetings, and witness-statement revisions involving Jonathan Powell, the Attorney General, or the Cabinet Office. She references the Sunday Times account directly, noting that “Powell left attendees with the understanding that Deputy National Security Adviser Collins’s witness statement would operate within the language of the report,” implying foreknowledge and coordination between Downing Street and prosecutors. She further alleges that Starmer’s ministers “softened” later witness statements to downplay Chinese espionage, replacing hard intelligence assessments with diplomatic phrasing designed to reassure Beijing. Her conclusion is cutting: “You have shown Britain is weak in the face of espionage, and have emboldened our enemies to believe they can spy on us with impunity.”

As reported previously by The Bureau, the controversy has now drawn international concern. The Chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, John Moolenaar, has issued an extraordinary public rebuke on the court matter — a move almost without precedent between close allies. In a two-page letter dated October 16, 2025, addressed to James Roscoe, chargé d’affaires at the British Embassy in Washington, Moolenaar warned that Britain’s decision to abandon the prosecution risked setting “a dangerous precedent that foreign adversaries can target democratically elected legislators with impunity.” He wrote that the decision “deeply troubles” U.S. lawmakers and “undermines Five Eyes security coordination,” given the substantial amount of evidence against Berry and Christopher Cash, who were accused of funnelling parliamentary intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party.

“I hope the UK government will not allow this case to falter,” Moolenaar said, “and will instead take the steps necessary to ensure that both justice and due process are served.”

The letter, co-signed by senior members of the Committee and publicly released by Congress, marks an exceptional public intervention in a live national-security case involving a Five Eyes partner. Moolenaar added that the decision to drop the prosecution — despite evidence confirming a direct intelligence channel from Westminster to Beijing — “paints a concerning picture,” noting the resumption of high-level UK–China trade talks, negotiations over China’s proposed “super embassy” in London, and London’s ongoing review of its diplomatic posture toward Beijing. “Allowing this PRC aggression to go unchecked,” he warned, “would only incentivize the CCP to further interfere in Western democracies.”

As The Bureau previously detailed, Matthew Collins’s witness statement traced an intelligence pipeline connecting Westminster directly to Beijing’s leadership. Berry, via his handler “Alex,” transmitted reports obtained from Christopher Cash, a parliamentary aide with access to Conservative MPs critical of Beijing. Collins confirmed that some of the same intelligence later appeared in the possession of a senior CCP Politburo Standing Committee member — reportedly Cai Qi, one of Xi Jinping’s closest allies. Collins also documented Beijing’s targeted inquiries into the 2022 Conservative leadership race, focusing on Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien, both members of the China Research Group (CRG) and long-standing critics of the CCP.

Taken together, the Heathrow cash seizure, the Powell-chaired meeting, the Badenoch letter, and the U.S. congressional intervention point to a modern Cold War crisis — a confrontation that has now moved beyond Westminster to test the cohesion of the Western alliance itself.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X