What happened
In a series of WhatsApp messages obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Palantir’s UK chief Louis Mosley (identified by the Guardian) pressed former health minister Zubir Ahmed to broaden the scope of the company’s existing £330 million NHS contract. The firm argued that adding GP records to its Foundry data‑analytics platform would deliver “faster access to GPs, more effective and targeted management of frail patients, and more effective preventative care”. The lobbying spanned from July 2025 to March 2026 and was coordinated with a briefing document that warned of “political” opposition from doctors, the Green Party and the Labour‑led Your Party. Palantir’s messages also highlighted that the platform would “maintain local control of data”, a point meant to allay concerns about centralised data ownership. The outreach came despite the original contract explicitly excluding GP data, a clause set by the previous government when the Federated Data Platform (FDP) was launched. The company’s push follows recent reporting that the UK health secretary, Yvette Cooper, is unlikely to terminate the contract in the near term, even as two House of Commons committees have called for its removal. Palantir has also employed former Labour peer Tom Watson as a full‑time lobbyist, who recently wrote to Cooper urging the continuation of the deal and positioning Palantir as a partner for building “sovereign AI” capability in the UK. Doctors’ bodies such as the British Medical Association and the NHS Chief Data and Analytical Officers Network have publicly warned that expanding Palantir’s reach into GP records could erode patient trust and breach promises made in 2023 that GP data would stay out of scope. The Department of Health and Social Care declined to comment on the messages.
The Guardian obtained a cache of WhatsApp messages exchanged between Palantir’s UK head Louis Mosley and former health minister Zubir Ahmed. The messages, dated from July 2025 to March 2026, reveal a concerted effort to persuade the minister that extending the Foundry platform to GP records would be both technically feasible and politically manageable.
Palantir’s briefing document, shared alongside the chats, framed the expansion as a way to “get out ahead of” anticipated opposition from doctors, the Green Party and the Labour‑led Your Party. The firm emphasized that its platform already delivers “very strong results” and would generate additional benefits faster with ministerial sponsorship.
The lobbying coincides with recent reporting that the health secretary Yvette Cooper is unlikely to terminate Palantir’s existing contract, despite two Commons committees recommending its removal. Palantir has also hired former Labour peer Tom Watson as a lobbyist, who wrote to Cooper urging the continuation of the contract and positioning Palantir as a partner for UK sovereign AI development.
Medical and patient groups, including the British Medical Association, have publicly warned that expanding Palantir’s data reach could undermine patient trust and the doctor‑patient relationship. They cite Palantir’s work with the Israeli military and US ICE as reasons for heightened scrutiny.
Source details: theguardian.com
Why it matters
The lobbying effort raises several high‑stakes issues for the UK health system and the broader AI policy landscape. First, integrating primary‑care data into Palantir’s Foundry would give the company access to highly sensitive, identifiable health information, intensifying concerns about data privacy, commercial exploitation and potential misuse by foreign governments, given Palantir’s contracts with the Israeli military and US ICE. Second, the move challenges a publicly stated commitment that GP data would remain outside the national data platform, undermining public trust in both the NHS and the government’s handling of health data. Third, the episode illustrates how private AI firms can use privileged channels to shape policy, bypassing broader parliamentary scrutiny and the recommendations of select committees that have flagged “scope creep”. Finally, the case highlights the tension between the desire for AI‑driven efficiencies in health care and the need for transparent, accountable governance structures that protect patient rights while fostering innovation. These dynamics matter because they set precedents for how AI tools are deployed in public services. If Palantir succeeds, it could pave the way for other AI vendors to seek similar expansions, potentially normalising deep integration of commercial AI platforms into core public‑sector data ecosystems without robust oversight. Conversely, strong push‑back could reinforce the principle that sensitive health data must remain under strict public control, shaping future legislation on AI and data sovereignty.
Data privacy: Adding GP records would give Palantir access to highly sensitive personal health information, raising questions about consent, data security and potential secondary uses of the data.
Policy integrity: The move directly contradicts the 2023 government pledge that GP data would not be part of the national platform, potentially eroding public confidence in government commitments.
: The case exemplifies how private AI firms can influence public policy through informal channels, bypassing broader parliamentary oversight and the recommendations of select committees.
Precedent setting: If successful, Palantir’s expansion could open the door for other AI vendors to seek similar access to public‑sector data, shaping the future regulatory environment for AI in health care.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
Watch for a formal decision from the Department of Health and Social Care on whether to amend the FDP contract to include GP data, likely before the next contract review in 2029. Parliamentary committees are expected to hold further hearings on data‑governance and AI ethics, and any amendment would probably require secondary legislation. Keep an eye on statements from the British Medical Association, patient advocacy groups and the NHS Data Network, as coordinated pressure could influence the ministerial response. Finally, monitor any legal challenges or Freedom of Information requests that could surface new evidence about the extent of Palantir’s lobbying activities.
A formal amendment to the FDP contract before the 2029 review, which would require ministerial approval and possibly secondary legislation.
Further hearings by the Health and Social Care Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee on AI use in the NHS.
Public statements or campaigns by the BMA, NHS Data Network and patient advocacy groups that could sway parliamentary opinion.
Potential legal challenges or additional FOIA disclosures that could reveal more about Palantir’s lobbying tactics.