What the messages do establish is that a contractor with privileged access sought to widen its own remit on data the public was told would be excluded, and that it understood the political risk of doing so.
Palantir pressed a British health minister to consider extending its artificial intelligence software into NHS GP records, according to WhatsApp messages obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the tech equity campaign group Foxglove and shared with the Guardian. The correspondence, which spans several months from July 2025 to March 2026, appears to be between Palantir's UK boss, Louis Mosley, and the former health minister Zubir Ahmed. The company's name for the executive is redacted in the released documents, but Palantir did not deny that the messages were his.
The timing matters. The approach came in February this year, even though GP data was expressly ruled out of the scope of Palantir's existing £330m contract with NHS England to run its federated data platform. When Rishi Sunak's Conservative government announced the deal three years ago, it said plainly that GP data would not be part of the national platform. According to the Guardian, Palantir argued in the messages that "the logic of joining up primary and secondary [care] data is unarguable" and that its software was "ideal" for the task. The firm also urged the minister to "get out ahead of" likely political opposition from doctors and from critics such as the Green party leader, Zack Polanski, and Your Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana.
The company told the minister that applying its Foundry software to GP data could bring faster access to GPs, more effective management of frail patients and better preventative care, while maintaining local control of data. It also said the platform was already delivering strong results and would deliver more, faster, with the right ministerial sponsorship. Palantir's public response to the report was measured: it said data sharing can improve the NHS for patients and taxpayers, that its software helps different NHS organisations do so while keeping local control, and that it is for the government to decide how the software is rolled out. The Department of Health and Social Care declined to comment.
The disclosure lands at an awkward moment for ministers. It follows reporting that the government is unlikely to end Palantir's NHS data contract imminently, defying campaigners and two House of Commons committees that wanted the company out by spring. The Financial Times reporting suggested the contract will be extended, amid concern that removing the firm's technology would be disruptive without an alternative in place. The health secretary, Yvette Cooper, told parliament last week that the review was ongoing but spoke of a "huge long-term benefit to using the NHS to develop UK sovereign AI", a hint that a domestic replacement may be sought when the contract reaches its next end point in 2029. Bloomberg reported that the Labour peer Tom Watson, hired by Palantir as a full-time lobbyist in September, wrote to Cooper urging her to keep the contract going.
Professional bodies have responded with concern rather than surprise. The British Medical Association's council chair, Tom Dolphin, warned of "scope creep" and said patients must be able to seek care without worrying which operators might hold duplicates of their personal information. Marc Farr, chair of the NHS Chief Data and Analytical Officers Network, said Palantir appeared to be bidding to stretch the scope of its work beyond statements from ministers and NHS leaders, and noted that GP data would require legislative change. Foxglove's Donald Campbell called the lobbying appalling and said the company knew how sensitive the issue was, making its argument privately through privileged access.
What remains unconfirmed is whether any extension of scope was ever formally considered, what the minister replied, and whether the February approach shaped government thinking. The department has said nothing. What the messages do establish is that a contractor with privileged access sought to widen its own remit on data the public was told would be excluded, and that it understood the political risk of doing so. For a health service whose plans for AI rest on patient consent, that is the question ministers will have to answer.
