As of January 2026, the NHS in England has reached a defining moment in its digital evolution, not because doctors suddenly discovered spreadsheets, but because the state has decided that efficiency now outranks consent in the national pecking order. What is being sold as modernisation has instead exposed a raw ideological collision between centralised control and public trust. At the heart of it sits the Federated Data Platform (FDP), a vast digital project described by the government as the future operating system of a health service still held together by fax machines and heroic staff improvisation.
The government’s case is a familiar one and, on its surface, reasonable. The NHS is fragmented, data is siloed, and inefficiency costs time, money, and sometimes lives. The FDP is presented as a way to clean, link, and visualise information so hospitals can schedule theatres, manage discharge, track beds, and plan services without drowning in incompatible systems. Ministers point to pilot sites and reported operational improvements as proof that this approach works.
The Palantir problem
Where the argument detonates is not the idea of better data, but the decision to award the contract to a consortium led by Palantir Technologies.
This has been driven politically by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who has framed the platform as a moral necessity rather than a policy choice. Streeting has publicly dismissed privacy concerns as overblown and portrayed opposition as technological Luddism that risks leaving the NHS stuck in the analogue past. Under his leadership, the FDP has moved from an optional experiment to an increasingly mandatory national programme, with planning guidance setting clear expectations that Trusts will be onboarded and using core products by the end of the 2028/29 cycle.
That tone matters, because it has helped transform a technical project into a legitimacy crisis.
The “Say No to Palantir” campaign, led by organisations including the Good Law Project, Foxglove, and professional bodies representing clinicians, does not argue against digitisation in principle. Instead, it argues that Palantir, given its history and business model, is the wrong supplier for a public healthcare system built on trust and care rather than surveillance and control.
Campaigners routinely point to Palantir’s origins in the defence and intelligence sector, and to its work for security and law enforcement agencies, as reasons for concern. They argue that software designed to integrate data for threat detection and enforcement sits uneasily with the ethical culture of a universal health service. These arguments are not framed as allegations of illegal behaviour, but as claims about institutional fit and values.
Central to the campaign’s rhetoric are the public comments of Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel about the NHS. Thiel has described public attachment to the NHS in dismissive terms and has questioned the legitimacy of the institution itself. Campaigners cite these remarks as evidence that Palantir’s leadership does not share the NHS’s foundational commitments. In their view, this creates an unacceptable risk that the NHS could become dependent on a company whose ideological outlook is openly hostile to public healthcare.
Legal dispute – the next step
From this flows the fear of vendor lock-in. Critics argue that once NHS operational logic is embedded into a proprietary data architecture, switching suppliers becomes technically difficult, financially costly, and politically risky. Even if contracts are time-limited, infrastructure dependence can outlast any single procurement cycle. This concern is not presented as proof of malicious intent, but as a structural risk inherent in any large-scale digital platform.
The dispute has increasingly moved into legal territory. A High Court challenge brought by the Good Law Project and Foxglove is testing the transparency and lawfulness of the FDP procurement and governance framework. Claimants argue that extensive redactions in the published contract prevent meaningful public scrutiny, particularly around data governance, intellectual property, and exit arrangements. NHS England maintains that redactions reflect commercial sensitivity and that the procurement process was lawful. These issues remain contested and unresolved as proceedings continue.
A further fault line lies in data protection law. NHS England has characterised the FDP as a tool for “direct care”, a classification that means the National Data Opt-out does not apply. Campaigners dispute this framing, arguing that large-scale aggregation of patient data for system planning, population health management, and resource allocation is more properly understood as secondary use. On that basis, they argue stronger consent mechanisms or explicit legal authorisation are required. Again, this is not a settled finding, but a live legal and ethical disagreement.
Historical context looms large. Previous NHS data initiatives collapsed after public trust evaporated, often due to unclear communication and weak opt-out mechanisms. The current campaign has drawn lessons from those failures. Rather than focusing solely on national politics, it has targeted individual NHS Trusts, reminding boards that they remain separate data controllers with legal responsibilities. The aim is to encourage local scrutiny, delay, or refusal where governance concerns remain unresolved.
Some digitally mature teaching hospitals have expressed scepticism about adopting a national platform, arguing that it would replace locally developed systems they believe are already superior. Campaigners point to this resistance as evidence that opposition is not anti-technology, but anti-imposition.
Politics, privacy and Palantir
Adding to the tension is the wider international context of Palantir’s work. Some NHS staff groups have publicly objected to the company’s involvement in overseas security and military projects, arguing that this association undermines morale and trust. These objections are framed as ethical concerns rather than allegations of wrongdoing, but they have nevertheless contributed to a widening trust gap between frontline workers and NHS leadership.
Privacy Enhancing Technologies have been cited by NHS England as safeguards, but critics argue that technical controls cannot compensate for unresolved questions about lawful basis, consent, and long-term control. Reports that NHS legal advice has questioned aspects of the governance framework have further fuelled scepticism, even as NHS England insists that appropriate protections are in place.
Running through all of this is a deeper fear about commodification. Critics argue that by creating a unified digital model of the NHS, the FDP makes it easier to unbundle services, outsource functions, and manage care through contractual metrics rather than public accountability. Whether or not this is the intention, they argue, the architecture itself reshapes what becomes possible.
As April 2026 milestones approach, the FDP remains balanced between political momentum and social resistance. The government may be able to mandate software adoption, but it cannot compel trust. Ongoing litigation, local pushback, and the risk of widespread patient opt-outs all threaten to undermine the platform’s effectiveness before it fully embeds.
You can order hospitals to install software, but you cannot order the public to believe you. If the NHS builds its digital brain around a company many patients and staff do not trust, the real system failure will not be technical. It will be human, and no dashboard in the world can patch that.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
