Concerns mount over NHS software supplier’s links with ICE
- 27 January 2026
- Concerns are mounting around links between NHS FDP supplier Palantir and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- A Palantir spokesperson told Digital Health News ICE's use of its surveillance software dates back to 2011
- The BMA, the Green Party and the Good Law Project are among those campaigning against Palantir's involvement in the NHS
Concerns are mounting over links between NHS federated data platform (FDP) supplier Palantir and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as tensions rise in the US.Â
US firm Palantir signed a ÂŁ330m contract in 2023 to provide the FDP, which will be reviewed by NHS England in 2027.
The company also provides advanced data analytics software used by government agencies, intelligence, and law enforcement for surveillance, predictive policing, and data integration.
NHSE’s medium term planning framework, published in October 2025, mandates that all trusts and integrated care boards must be onboarded to the FDP and use its core products to support elective recovery, cancer, and urgent and emergency care.
However clinicians, patients and politicians have expressed increasing concern about the NHS supplier’s provision of surveillance software to the ICE, after the last few weeks saw ICE agents fatally shoot two US citizens: Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, and Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse.
Doctors vote no confidence
The British Medical Association (BMA) voted to lobby against the firm’s involvement in the NHS at its annual representative meeting in June 2025, owing to “a lack of transparency in how the data will be stored and processed, a track record of creating discriminatory policing software in the US, and close links to a US government which shows little regard for international law”.
Dr David Wrigley, deputy chair of GPC England at the BMA, told Digital Health News:Â âIf Palantirâs software is being used to target individuals in immigration enforcement and is being deployed in active conflict zones, then that’s completely incompatible with the values we uphold in the delivery of care.
âPatients will understandably be alarmed and may choose to withhold information from their doctor to the detriment of their care if they do not trust the organisation processing their data or there are fears about what the data might be used for.”
Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, delivered a letter to Palantir on 21 January 2026, telling the firm to âget the hell out of the NHSâ and criticising its provision of technology to ICE.
In the letter Polanski says: “It has been reported that you are working on a tool for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that populates a map with potential deportation targets, brings up a dossier on each person, and provides a ‘confidence score’ on the personâs current address.
“We are strongly of the view that ICE is acting like a personalised paramilitary police force to Donald Trump, and recently shot dead Renee Good in cold blood. We stand in solidarity with her.”
It also flags concerns about the firm’s alleged provision of technology to Israel in support of war-related missions and “track record around the world of surveillance and discriminatory use of data”.
Patient fears
Concerns are also rising among patients. A Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust board paper, published on 16 January 2026, highlights âquestions from members of the public addressed concerns regarding the FDPâ and said that members of staff had âraised issues related to supplier Palantir, citing human rights concerns linked to actions in Israel and refencing Amnesty International reportsâ.
A spokesperson for Rotherham NHS FT told Digital Health News that concerns had been “responded to directly” by the trust.
The Defend Whittington Hospital Coalition in London has raised a petition calling on the government to end Palantirâs involvement in the NHS and the campaign group Medact Sheffield held a free public meeting on 26 January to “discuss how local citizens and health workers can take collective action to keep Palantir out of the NHS”.
Duncan McCann, head of tech and data at the Good Law Project, which previously took legal action over NHSEâs heavily redacted contract with Palantir, said: âIf the NHS gets into bed with a firm like Palantir â which powers deadly immigration raids in the US â it puts patient privacy and public trust at risk.”
Delivering results in the NHS
Responding to concerns, a spokesperson for Palantir, told Digital Health News:Â âICEâs use of our software is longstanding – dating back to 2011, and has continued across multiple administrations, including those under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump.â
They added that although Palantir is “proud to support Israel”, the firm has “no involvement whatsoever in the so-called âLavenderâ and âGospelâ targeting systems” used by Israel.
âAs well as being used to deliver results in the NHS, Palantir software is also being used by UK police to tackle domestic violence and organised crime – and notably by Ukraine, to defend its citizens from the Russian invasion,â they said.
The firm said that the FDP has helped the NHS deliver an additional 80,000 operations and reduce delays to discharge by around 15%.
Meanwhile, some NHS trusts have opted not to use the FDP because they have their own local data tools in place.
A spokesperson for NHSE told Digital Health News: âThe supplier of the NHS FDP was appointed in line with public contract regulations and must only operate under the instruction of the NHS when processing data, with strict stipulations in the contract about confidentiality.
âThe platform is already delivering for the NHS â helping to join up patient care, increase hospital productivity, speed up cancer diagnosis and ensure thousands of additional patients can be treated each month.”
2 Comments
Your absolutely right, I think the further risk is that the key players behind Palantir are leading and funding a political movement that believes might is right and doesn’t give two figs for contracts, the law, or judicial process. If we rely on the law being followed, we’re playing the game blindfolded with both hands tied behind our backs. Peter Theil is on record saying that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.
Latest example, ICE agents in the US being given immunity from prosecution, much like the brown-shirts and black shirts in pre-WW2 Germany, once Hitler took power. Whilst we’re on that topic, Palantir have recently launched an internship for US forces veterans [not in itself a bad thing], and current reservists [? why].
Palantir’s PR talks about defending the West and ‘dominating’ opponents. Alex Karp revels in the idea his software is used to kill people, in public and on record. Peter Theil is an anti-christ obsessed lunatic who regularly appears off his face, twitching like ferrets in a sack, when interviewed on TV.
Am I wise to trust my most personal data to these people, and that of my family, including race, gender, place of birth, immigration status, and soon, *genetics*.
Really? Does this strike anyone as a sensible supplier for a national NHS system where the trust of the wider population is crucial? Why is one US supplier all over our critical national infrastructure, but sadly not yet rail.
If Mosely is reading this, throw us a bone and just for once, do a TV interview without wearing a black shirt..
The issue isnât whether Palantir intends to honour NHS contracts. Itâs whether contracts mean anything when a supplier is subject to US national security and surveillance law.
US legislation (the Patriot Act, CLOUD Act, FISA) allows the US government to compel access to data and impose gag orders on US-headquartered firms, regardless of where the data is held or what a foreign public contract says. Contracts do not override sovereign coercion.
In that context, assurances that Palantir will âonly act under NHS instructionâ are not a structural safeguard â they are an assumption about legal restraint elsewhere.
Healthcare data depends on trust. If patients believe their data could be compelled, repurposed, or accessed beyond NHS control, they will withhold information. That degrades care, regardless of whether misuse ever actually occurs.
This is not about ideology or accusations. It is about legal reality and risk. You cannot guarantee NHS data sovereignty while relying on a US-headquartered supplier operating under US national security law â no matter how strong the contract language appears.
Recent conduct by the current US administration, including disregard for due process and individual rights, only amplifies this risk. In that light, claims that contractual controls alone provide protection are paper thin.
Comments are closed.