Revision #1

On March 12, 2026, a coalition of human rights organizations, medical campaigners, and trade unions published a briefing document that amounts to a full-throated call to arms against one of the most controversial contracts in NHS history. The target: Palantir Technologies, the American data analytics company co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, which holds a £330 million, seven-year contract to build and operate the NHS Federated Data Platform — a system designed to connect patient data across up to 240 NHS organizations [1][2].

The briefing, authored by health justice charity Medact and endorsed by Amnesty International, the Good Law Project, Privacy International, Just Treatment, Corporate Watch, and the United Tech and Allied Workers Union, urges every NHS trust and Integrated Care Board in England to refuse to adopt the platform — and demands that NHS England terminate the contract entirely at its upcoming review in February 2027 [1][3].

It is the latest and most coordinated salvo in a campaign that has been building for months, and which has now drawn in the British Medical Association, representing over 200,000 doctors, major hospital trusts, and patient advocacy groups. At stake is not just a software contract, but a fundamental question about who should be trusted with the most intimate data a government holds: the health records of an entire nation.

The £330 Million Deal

The Federated Data Platform, or FDP, was awarded to Palantir in November 2023 by the then-Conservative government, following a competitive tender process that itself was contentious [4]. The platform is built on Palantir's Foundry software and is designed to integrate data on hospital beds, waiting lists, staff rosters, and discharge planning across the NHS in England. NHS England says the platform has helped deliver 100,000 additional operations, a 12% reduction in discharge delays, and the removal of 675,000 patients from waiting lists [5].

But Palantir's entry into the NHS did not begin with this contract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the company secured approximately £60 million in non-competitive emergency contracts to help the NHS manage its data response — a foot in the door that critics say was never subjected to proper scrutiny [6]. When the competitive tender for the larger FDP contract followed, campaigners argued the process was tilted in Palantir's favor by the company's existing incumbency.

NHS England published a heavily redacted 586-page version of the contract in January 2024, with most information under "protection of personal data" blacked out — a move that only deepened suspicions [7].

A Platform Most Hospitals Don't Want

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the FDP controversy is how few hospitals have actually embraced it. By the end of 2024, fewer than a quarter of England's 215 hospital trusts were actively using the platform [8]. By May 2025, Palantir claimed 72 trusts were live — still less than a third [8]. As of September 2025, despite 150 trusts having formally onboarded, only 77 were actively reporting benefits [9].

Source: Democracy for Sale / Tech Monitor / NHS England

Data as of Mar 15, 2026CSV

The resistance has come from some of the NHS's most prestigious institutions. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust told NHS England in a private communication that adopting some of Palantir's tools would lead it to "lose functionality rather than gain it" [8]. Greater Manchester Health Authority stated flatly that no Palantir products "exceed the NHS Greater Manchester local capability" [8]. The Royal Marsden and Great Ormond Street Hospital are among other major trusts that have declined adoption [3]. Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust declared simply that it had "no plans to join the FDP programme" [8].

The NHS Chief Data and Analytical Officer Network has noted that many trusts "already have similar tools in use that presently exceed the capability and application of what the FDP is currently trying to develop" [8]. In response to the lackluster uptake, the Department of Health and Social Care awarded KPMG an £8 million contract specifically to "promote the adoption" of Palantir's software — essentially paying consultants to convince hospitals to use a product many don't want [8].

The Doctors' Revolt

The most significant institutional opposition came on February 11, 2026, when the British Medical Association — the UK's largest doctors' union — publicly urged its members to cease all non-clinical use of the Palantir platform [6].

"Doctors working in the NHS can no longer provide the tacit endorsement that using a product implies and must immediately take steps to explore refusing any non-direct care usage of Palantir's Federated Data Platform, with a view to moving away from the platform entirely in time," wrote Tom Dolphin, BMA chair of council, in a letter published in the British Medical Journal [6].

In a subsequent interview, Dolphin went further: "Given Palantir's track record, including controversies in the US involving immigration enforcement and the risks to patient trust, data security, and NHS independence, we believe there must be a complete break from Palantir technologies in the NHS and no further contracts awarded" [6].

The BMA's position was driven by a specific catalyst: Palantir's deepening involvement in U.S. immigration enforcement. In 2025, ICE awarded Palantir a $30 million contract to build "ImmigrationOS," a surveillance platform designed to streamline the identification, tracking, and deportation of immigrants [10]. Reports emerged that ICE was using a Palantir tool called ELITE that ingests data from Medicaid and other government databases to generate dossiers on people the agency believes may be deportable — a direct link between health data and enforcement action that sent shockwaves through the British medical establishment [11][12].

The Human Rights Case

The March 2026 Medact briefing goes beyond data privacy to mount a comprehensive human rights case against Palantir's involvement in the NHS [1].

Amnesty International, in supporting the briefing, cited Palantir's "track record of flagrantly disregarding international law and standards, both in violations of the human rights of migrants in the United States and its supply of AI products to the Israeli military and intelligence services" [2]. Matt Mahmoudi, an Amnesty International researcher, called the company "an unsuitable partner for NHS England" [2].

The Israeli military dimension has become increasingly prominent. Palantir has supplied AI tools to the Israel Defense Forces throughout the conflict in Gaza, and co-founder Peter Thiel publicly stated his position: "I'm not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel, because my bias is to defer to Israel. It's not for us to second-guess everything" [13]. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese concluded that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" Palantir's AI platform has been used in Israel's "unlawful use of force," causing disproportionate loss of civilian life [13].

The campaigners' central fear is not that Palantir itself will misuse NHS data, but that the "highly interoperable nature" of the company's software creates infrastructure that could be exploited by future governments. The Medact briefing warns that "bringing together disparate health datasets onto a single platform run by Palantir could enable UK government departments — such as the Home Office and police departments — to more easily access confidential patient information" [4][1].

This is not a hypothetical concern. Medact's Rhiannon Osborne noted that "fifty thousand patients have written formal complaints to their hospitals" about the platform [3]. The fear that health data could be used for immigration enforcement — as has already occurred in the United States — is particularly acute for migrant communities, who may avoid seeking medical care altogether if they believe their records could be shared with enforcement agencies.

The Revolving Door

The controversy has been compounded by questions about the relationships between Palantir, the British government, and senior NHS figures.

In February 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Palantir's Washington headquarters alongside Peter Mandelson, then the UK Ambassador to the United States [14]. Mandelson is the founder of Global Counsel, a lobbying firm that counts Palantir as a client — a connection that has drawn fierce criticism and prompted the legal advocacy group Foxglove to demand full disclosure of the visit's details [14]. No official minutes or transcript have been published.

Months after that visit, the Ministry of Defence awarded Palantir a £240 million contract without competitive tender [14].

Meanwhile, Matthew Swindells — a former deputy CEO of NHS England who joined Palantir's health advisory board after leaving the NHS — was reported by the Financial Times to have urged colleagues to add GP patient data to the FDP while simultaneously serving as a paid adviser to the company through Global Counsel [15]. Swindells holds the joint chairmanship of four London hospital trusts and was supposed to be excluded from Palantir-related decisions, but reportedly emailed NHS executives in May 2024 advocating for data expansion [15].

Palantir's Defense

Palantir has pushed back vigorously against the campaign. A company spokesperson told The Register that "Palantir software is helping to deliver better public services in the UK," citing NHS operations, naval logistics, and domestic violence prevention efforts [6].

On the specific accusation that the FDP could be used to share patient data with government departments, Palantir stated that "to do so would be illegal and in breach of contract," emphasizing that data usage is "entirely under the control of the NHS" and that the company has "no intention of and no means of using the data in the way" described by critics [4].

After the BMA's February intervention, Palantir accused the doctors' union of "choosing ideology over patient interest" [16].

NHS England has maintained that data in the FDP remains under NHS control at all times and that Palantir is not permitted to access, use, or share it for its own purposes [5]. The platform is not currently mandatory for local health bodies.

The February 2027 Reckoning

The contract includes a break clause in February 2027 — less than a year away — that gives NHS England the option to terminate the agreement. The Medact coalition is explicitly targeting this deadline, calling on NHS England to exercise the clause and pivot to in-house or open-source alternatives [1].

The political landscape has shifted since the contract was signed. The Labour government that took office in 2024 has sent mixed signals: while Starmer's Palantir visit raised alarm bells, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has acknowledged concerns about data privacy and public trust. The BMA's intervention has made it politically difficult to simply wave the contract through its review.

Source: The Register / Foxglove / Digital Health

Data as of Mar 15, 2026CSV

Meanwhile, the campaign against Palantir continues to build grassroots momentum. The "No Palantir in the NHS" campaign has produced toolkits for local activists, and Medact's briefing is specifically designed to be presented to NHS Trust Boards and Health Scrutiny Committees [1]. Former Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski has hand-delivered a symbolic contract termination notice to Palantir's offices [17].

The national data opt-out statistics offer a window into public sentiment: as of late 2024, 3.6 million people — 5.4% of the GP-registered population — had formally opted out of having their confidential patient information used for research and planning purposes [18]. While this figure predates the most intense period of the Palantir controversy, campaigners expect it to rise significantly as awareness grows.

What's Really at Stake

The Palantir controversy is ultimately about more than one company or one contract. It is a proxy battle over the future of health data governance in an era when the same technologies that can optimize hospital operations can also track immigrants, target military strikes, and enable mass surveillance.

Palantir posted $4.48 billion in revenue in 2025 — a 56% increase year-over-year — with its stock surging over 130% in the same period [19]. The company holds a $10 billion U.S. Army framework contract, a $30 million ICE deal, and growing defense engagements worldwide [10][19]. Its NHS contract, while significant, represents a fraction of its global portfolio.

For the NHS, however, the stakes are existential in a different way. Public trust in a universal health service depends on patients believing their most sensitive information will remain confidential. If communities begin avoiding healthcare over fears of data misuse — as has already been documented in the United States among immigrant populations — the consequences could be measured not in contracts and revenue, but in lives.

As the BMA's Tom Dolphin put it: "If patients no longer feel able to trust the NHS to handle their data confidentially, this will undermine public trust in a confidential health service" [6]. With the February 2027 break clause approaching, the question is whether NHS England will listen.