Growing Number of Councils Speak Out Against Palantir’s NHS Data Deal

A growing number of local councils are speaking out against US data-analytics giant Palantir’s presence in the NHS, as pressure rises to remove the company from the health service and wider public sector.

The opposition centres on the Federated Data Platform (FDP), the Palantir-built centralised data tool bringing together NHS records from across England, and which is projected to cost at least £330 million. Palantir claims the national data platform is already improving care by cutting cancer diagnosis waits and patient discharge delays.

However, the firm is controversial, widely viewed as closely aligned with the Trump administration’s aggressive ICE-led mass deportation programme, providing tech underpinning ICE’s deportation system, which in 2024 signed a “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Defense Ministry to aid Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Sheffield City Council, as first reported by The Citizens, recently became the first local authority in England to approve a cross-party motion opposing Palantir’s involvement in the NHS, backed by campaign organisation Medact Sheffield.

The motion, ‘Rejecting the NHS Palantir Contract and Protecting Patient Data’, was tabled by Green Party councillor Toby Mallinson, and passed on 24 June, receiving support from 62 councillors, with amendments from Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors, and 13 abstentions to the motion.

The initial motion, symbolically passed by Sheffield council, cited concerns about the award of the FDP contract, explaining that it would be unlikely to meet the standards set out in the Council’s own Ethical Procurement Policy.

It also noted a potential lack of public confidence in patient data confidentiality, lack of perceived ‘sovereignty’ in ceding data to the US firm rather than trusted British firms, opposition to companies deeply embedded within military and intelligence services, and a concern that patients opting out could fragment NHS datasets. It also cites a growing withdrawal from Palantir’s products across Europe as a potential precedent for the motion.

It called upon the Government to exercise the break clause in Palantir’s contract, ‘transitioning to a publicly-owned, transparent, UK-based operator’. The council motion also calls on the four Sheffield NHS Trusts and Integrated Care Board (ICB) to freeze integration with the FDP.

It also backed a review of council data-sharing agreements to ensure no local authority data “interacts with systems managed by Palantir.”

The motion requests that the Health Scrutiny Sub-Committee considers questioning Sheffield NHS Trusts and ICB on any risks of relying on Palantir.

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has said it is not adopting the FDP at this time because it is embedding a different patient records system.

But Sheffield now isn’t the only local authority to have raised concerns over Palantir, or passed motions calling for Government action.

Other Councils Follow Suit

In nearby Rotherham, councillors and campaigners called for an end to the FDP deal, in a motion brought forward by Independent councillor Taiba Yasseen along with the Greens, and backed by Labour councillors. Again, it called upon the Government to end its NHS agreements with Palantir. This motion was approved on 15 July by a majority vote.

It follows London Mayor Sadiq Khan blocking a contract between Palantir and the Metropolitan Police in May, enraging senior Met figures and triggering a lawsuit from the US data giant.

A spokesperson for Palantir told Byline Times: “These motions are bad for patients because the FDP is helping to improve care – including 110,000 additional operations, a 15 per cent reduction in delays to discharge to long stay patients and a 6.8 per cent increase in the number of patients finding out whether or not they have cancer within 28 days. The programme is also one of 30 out of 213 major Government programmes that has a green delivery rating, forecast to deliver £5 benefit for every £1 spent.”

Speaking to Byline Times, Yasseen said: “The NHS runs on trust. We are sending a clear message that the people of Rotherham expect the highest standards when it comes to protecting our most personal information.

“Our motion calls on the Government to put patient privacy, public confidence and investment in British and NHS led solutions ahead of dependence on Palantir, an overseas corporation whose conduct has raised serious ethical and human rights concerns. We should be building the NHS’s digital future here in Britain, not outsourcing it abroad.”

Related reading: Palantir Co-Founder Peter Thiel and Reform UK’s Cambridge University Recruitment Pipeline Project Revealed

Mounting Pressure On Ministers

A third local authority, East Herts council also appears to have set its sights on Palantir, with a motion due to be discussed this Wednesday 22 July. The motion states: “Palantir is now deeply embedded in the NHS and Ministry of Defence – and the longer they are in place, the harder and more expensive it becomes to remove them.”

It cites recent reporting from Democracy for Sale which reports that the tool is ten times slower than current systems already in place and has “poor user experience”, highlights the lack of a competitive tender process, and highlights a recent Health Service Journal article suggesting the true cost of FDP implementation is likely to exceed £1 billion.

The backlash to ICB integration with Palantir’s FDP isn’t an isolated phenomenon. Last year, Greater Manchester became the first major health region in England to opt out of installing the national data platform, doubling down on its position as of May 2026, due to the reported lack of evidence over the benefits of the technology.

Manchester’s ICB has offered a UK-developed alternative to Palantir, concluding that its own homegrown alternative, built by British universities, NHS clinicians, and domestic technology firms, was a stronger option.

Two parliamentary committees of cross-party MPs have now urged the Labour Government to ditch the £330 million deal with Palantir, and to look at alternative options, citing ‘serious mistrust’ among the public and medical profession of its NHS system. Both the science and technology committee and health and social care committee have both raised concerns over Palantir’s presence in the health service.

This itself follows months of pressure from campaign organisations, and NHS CEO Sir Jim Mackey said he wants to see a full review of the effectiveness of the FDP, sparking a watchdog investigation into it, after doubts have been raised from within NHS England about its effectiveness, as first reported by the FT. For many, it now seems a matter of when, not if, the contract will be halted.

Recent reports indicate that Britain’s new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is potentially set to ditch Palantir from the NHS, and in his first keynote speech on Monday said he wanted to see social value play a larger part in contracts awarded by the Government.

Speaking to Byline Times, Rory Gibson, Medact Sheffield co-coordinator and resident doctor, said: “It’s powerful to witness an increasing number of local authorities taking a stand in opposition of the Government and NHS’s decision to partner with Palantir. These decisions by local authorities are directly in response to grassroots organisers across the country resisting the takeover of our public services by unaccountable and unethical tech firms.”

“Hopefully, we continue to see more councils pass similar resolutions meaning that the Government eventually has to listen and realises that, similar to what recent YouGov polling suggests, the public do not want Palantir in the NHS.”

Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com