White House Sounds Alarm as Labour Pushes Ahead With China’s Secret Super-Embassy Under London

Summary: The White House has said it is “deeply concerned” about Labour’s expected approval of China’s proposed “super-embassy” at Royal Mint Court, after unredacted plans revealed extensive underground rooms close to sensitive fibre-optic cables. Ministers are facing cross-party pressure over national security, Five Eyes trust, and the UK’s leverage with Beijing.

White House warning as Labour moves toward approval

US officials have raised the alarm over Labour’s plan to sign off a vast new Chinese diplomatic complex in central London, following revelations about a large subterranean layout beneath the site.

The development, near the Tower of London, is billed as China’s biggest diplomatic mission in Europe. The controversy is what sits underneath it.

“The United States remains deeply concerned about adversaries exploiting the critical infrastructure of our closest allies.”

3 commentsTap to read

The “secret rooms” and the cable corridor risk

Unredacted drawings reported by The Telegraph indicate 208 rooms beneath the former Royal Mint site, including an underground chamber described as up to 40 metres across and two to three metres deep.

According to the report, the chamber sits alongside fibre-optic cables carrying high volumes of data between the City of London and Canary Wharf.

Plans also reference ventilation and hot-air extraction systems. Critics argue these features could support heat-generating equipment, such as advanced computing, raising espionage concerns.

Labour ministers pressed over what they knew

Matthew Pennycook, the planning minister, declined to say whether ministers had seen the unredacted plans before they became public, and said the Government would not comment on speculation.

That response has fuelled claims of weak oversight, especially given the security sensitivity of the location and the UK’s position as a Five Eyes intelligence partner.

Parliament revolt grows as MPs cite “hostile state” briefings

Labour backbenchers have publicly criticised the proposal, warning against approving a project they say rewards Beijing’s hostile posture.

“Every security briefing I have had identifies China as a hostile state to the UK. I am in no doubt that this mega-embassy should not be allowed to go ahead.”

Senior figures have also argued the redactions themselves were a warning sign, not reassurance.

US lawmakers: Five Eyes trust and Americans’ data “at risk”

In Washington, the embassy plans have become a live political issue. John Moolenaar, chair of the US House select committee on China, said he opposed the project and warned Americans’ data may be “at risk”.

“The CCP is a threat to the UK – a Five Eyes intelligence partner – and free people everywhere.”

This matters because intelligence partnerships run on confidence. Once that goes, it does not come back quickly.

Timing problem: Starmer’s China trip and the leverage question

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve the embassy before a stated deadline, ahead of a trip to China where he is due to meet Xi Jinping.

US sources quoted by The Telegraph suggested approving the plans before talks would reduce Britain’s bargaining power, particularly if the Government is hoping for trade or diplomatic concessions.

From a pro-Brexit perspective, this is exactly the kind of strategic naivety voters were promised would end: Britain acting like a serious sovereign country, not a soft target desperate for a deal.

What this means for UK sovereignty, security, and free speech

This row is not just about a building. It is about whether the UK can protect critical infrastructure while resisting pressure from an authoritarian state that has repeatedly demonstrated it uses leverage aggressively.

Labour’s approach risks sending the wrong signal: that when push comes to shove, Britain will take security warnings, file them away, and sign the paperwork anyway.

Reform UK and small-c conservatives are likely to argue that a government serious about borders, sovereignty, and security would pause the project, publish what it can, and put national interests ahead of diplomatic flattery.

Bottom line

The Government can either treat this as a serious national-security question, or a planning inconvenience to be managed with careful wording.

With the White House now on record as “deeply concerned”, Labour’s room for error has shrunk dramatically, and the political fallout will only grow if ministers cannot clearly explain what safeguards exist and who signed off what, and when.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the document “shows that every denial that the Government has made to us about the usage, the location, and the communications cables is an absolute unmitigated lie”.