I investigated Palantir’s foothold in the British state – and what I found should worry us all | Peter Geoghegan
This Guardian opinion article argues that Palantir has become deeply embedded in the British state, especially through its £330 million NHS federated data platform, and says that should alarm the new government. Peter Geoghegan contends that weak regulation, political access and strong media backing helped the US data and surveillance company expand rapidly, while evidence from his investigation raises doubts about whether its NHS technology is delivering the promised benefits.
The piece says NHS England presents the platform as a success, with almost two-thirds of trusts said to be “live” on it since 2024, but internal usage data reportedly show dozens of those trusts had not logged into any FDP app in the past year. It also cites limited uptake of Palantir’s Cancer 360 tool, used by six of roughly 200 trusts in its first nine months, and reports complaints from clinicians and analysts that the system can be slower or less effective than existing tools. Palantir responded that it is only the software provider, that usage decisions are made by NHS trusts, and that its system includes extra security features that make direct comparisons difficult.
In short
- Article questions Palantir’s growing role in Britain
- NHS usage data reportedly undermines success claims
- Critics say oversight and value concerns remain
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that allowing a US surveillance-linked company such deep access to British healthcare infrastructure creates unacceptable risks around data security, foreign influence and regulatory capture. If actual usage contradicts official claims of success, this suggests the public is being misled or the technology offers poor value for taxpayers. They contend that weak oversight of this arrangement sets a dangerous precedent that prioritises corporate expansion over rigorous public protection.
The case against
Supporters argue that Palantir was fairly selected through competitive procurement and functions only as a software provider whilst NHS trusts independently decide whether and how to use it. They note that enhanced security features justify performance differences with existing systems, and that early-stage adoption metrics should not determine long-term value judgements. They maintain that modern healthcare requires sophisticated data capabilities, and that the UK needs access to leading technology providers regardless of their nationality or sector.
Explained simply
Palantir is a US technology company that sells software for organising and analysing large amounts of data. In Britain, it has won government work, including a contract to build the NHS Federated Data Platform, intended to help health services share information and coordinate care.
The NHS is made up of many trusts, which run hospitals and other services. The platform is meant to bring their data together while keeping it secure; Palantir supplies the software, while NHS organisations decide how to use it.
The debate concerns how much public information should be handled through a private company’s technology, and how well promised benefits are measured. It also raises questions about oversight, data security and whether new systems improve on tools already used by NHS staff.
Americas Business Companies Government Politics UK World