The battle over who controls NHS data has reached a new and troubling frontier. Palantir, the controversial U.S. data analytics firm with deep ties to the military-industrial complex and intelligence services, has secured a £330 million contract to develop the NHS Federated Data Platform. This deal, one of the most significant IT contracts in NHS history, is intended to unify patient data across England’s fragmented health system. But behind the promises of efficiency and improved patient care lies a far more concerning reality: a shift in control of the UK’s most valuable public health asset into the hands of a private, for-profit tech giant with an opaque track record.

Palantir was founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur with libertarian leanings, alongside Alex Karp and others. Its early success came from its partnerships with the CIA and U.S. Department of Defense, providing software that could analyze vast amounts of data to assist intelligence and military operations. Over the years, the company has expanded its reach into commercial sectors, with healthcare being one of its prime targets. The NHS, with its treasure trove of patient data, represents an unparalleled opportunity for Palantir, not just for profit but for influence in shaping global healthcare analytics. The company first entered the NHS ecosystem in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was brought in on a £1 contract to assist with managing pandemic-related data. That initial foothold soon expanded, with Palantir winning a £23.5 million contract later that year to continue supporting NHS data infrastructure. Now, with the Federated Data Platform contract firmly in hand, Palantir is positioning itself as an indispensable partner to the UK’s public health system.

The NHS Federated Data Platform is designed to link patient information across hospitals, GP practices, and community services, allowing for more seamless care coordination. Palantir has already implemented its Foundry software in some NHS trusts, with reports suggesting that its tools have helped reduce waiting lists and improve hospital bed management. Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, for example, saw a reported 28% decrease in waiting lists after using Palantir’s system. But efficiency claims alone do not outweigh the broader risks of handing over critical national health infrastructure to a foreign private company. A central issue in this debate is ownership. Who truly owns health data: the NHS or the individual patient?

Legally, under UK data protection laws, patients have control over their own personal medical data, yet in practice, it is stored, managed, and utilised by the NHS and its associated bodies. This creates a grey area in which institutions like NHS England can enter contracts with companies like Palantir without explicit patient consent. While the government has insisted that patient data will not be sold or used commercially, there are no legally binding assurances that prevent Palantir from leveraging its NHS experience to develop proprietary healthcare technologies or AI models that could later be sold for profit. The UK government has tried to reassure the public that patient data will remain under NHS control and that Palantir’s role is purely administrative. However, we argue that the company’s involvement sets a dangerous precedent. Privacy campaigners, including groups like Foxglove and OpenDemocracy, have raised alarms over the lack of transparency in how these contracts were awarded and what safeguards exist to prevent future data misuse. There is also growing concern that once Palantir is embedded within NHS systems, it will be nearly impossible to remove, locking the health service into long-term reliance on proprietary U.S. technology.

One of the major criticisms of Palantir’s NHS contract is that it represents the creeping privatisation of public healthcare through the back door. While the NHS remains publicly funded, outsourcing critical infrastructure to private companies erodes public oversight and accountability. Palantir is not a charitable organization; it is a corporation with shareholders and a duty to maximize profits. The long-term worry is that NHS data, one of the world’s most comprehensive health datasets, could be commercialised or even shared with other entities, including insurers and pharmaceutical companies, under the guise of “data partnerships.” Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, has been an outspoken critic of public healthcare, famously calling the NHS a “wasteful” system. His ideological opposition to universal healthcare raises fundamental questions about why his company is so interested in controlling NHS data. Some speculate that Palantir sees NHS contracts as a stepping stone to dominating global healthcare analytics, using the UK as a test case to demonstrate the potential of its technology before expanding to other countries. Others worry that the company’s deep ties to U.S. intelligence agencies could lead to NHS data being used in ways that are not aligned with UK public health interests.

There is also the matter of precedent. If the UK government is willing to hand over NHS data infrastructure to Palantir today, what other aspects of public health might be privatized in the future? The NHS has historically struggled with IT modernization, with high-profile failures like the abandoned National Programme for IT costing taxpayers billions. The reliance on Palantir may be an attempt to avoid another costly disaster, but it also reveals a worrying lack of confidence in the NHS’s ability to manage its own digital transformation.

Supporters of the Palantir deal argue that advanced data analytics are essential for modernizing the NHS. With an aging population and rising demand for services, data-driven decision-making could help allocate resources more efficiently, reduce hospital overcrowding, and improve patient outcomes. The UK is already behind other countries in leveraging big data for healthcare, and some believe that working with a company like Palantir is a necessary step forward. But at what cost? The fundamental issue at stake is not just efficiency but control: who should be responsible for managing the NHS’s digital infrastructure? Should it be a private U.S. company with a history of working with intelligence agencies, or should it be a publicly accountable body with a clear mandate to serve UK patients? The NHS was built on the principle of universal care, free at the point of use. Outsourcing its data backbone to a private corporation risks undermining that mission, even if the consequences are not immediately visible.

There are alternative policy solutions that could mitigate the risks of corporate involvement in NHS data. One option would be to introduce strict regulatory safeguards preventing private companies from monetizing NHS data for external use. The UK government could also prohibit companies that manage NHS data infrastructure from engaging in business with private health insurers operating in the UK, preventing any potential conflicts of interest. Another approach could be to explore ways in which NHS data could be used for public benefit, such as taxing companies that use NHS-derived research and redistributing those funds back into the health system or as tax reductions for the general population.

A more radical approach would be to reject private sector involvement entirely and invest in a publicly owned NHS data management system, ensuring full public control over health data without external corporate interests. However, given the NHS’s historical struggles with IT development, this would require significant investment, political will, and long-term planning, something successive governments have failed to deliver. This is not a simple question of technology; it is a question of sovereignty, trust, and the future of public healthcare. Once control over NHS data is ceded to Palantir, reversing course may be impossible. The UK government must answer not just how this deal benefits the NHS today, but what it means for the health service decades from now. If the wrong decisions are made, the price will not be measured in money alone, it will be measured in the fundamental loss of public trust in the institution that millions rely on for their health and wellbeing.