The relationship between the UK government and Palantir Technologies, the US data analytics firm co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, has evolved from temporary pandemic-era contracts into a significant role across British public services.

Critics see the expansion as corporate encroachment on public infrastructure, while military figures who championed the company argue its technology is essential.

General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former director of special forces and commander of the field army who now advises Palantir, defended the partnership.

"The reason I brought Palantir in here, as had been the case in Afghanistan and other places, was that it was an extraordinarily effective tool," General Lamb told Anadolu.

After retiring from military command in 2009, Lamb joined Palantir as a senior advisor and advocated for its technology within Whitehall and the Defense Ministry.

He utilized his extensive networks and reputation to advocate for the platform, testifying before the Parliamentary Defense Select Committee in 2014 that Palantir’s data-mining software had directly saved British soldiers' lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Palantir deployed individual experts – technical experts – into the theater of operations, where they worked alongside armies, soldiers, marines and everyone else involved, providing a service that saved lives. That's why I gave Palantir my absolute authority," he said.

Yet outside the corridors of power, that "absolute authority" has triggered intense public scrutiny, legal challenges, and a growing political backlash from watchdogs and lawmakers alike.

The National Health Service (NHS) awarded Palantir a £330 million ($441 million), seven-year contract to operate its Federated Data Platform (FDP), intended to improve operational efficiency.

The deal, however, has faced opposition from privacy campaigners concerned about access to sensitive patient information. Lamb dismissed those concerns.

"I'm sure people will turn around and say, 'Oh, you're giving away the crown jewels. You're handing over data. You shouldn't be doing this.' Well, the answer is: in that case, just opt out of technology." However, campaigners argue that avoiding technology is not a realistic option for patients using a national health service.

The Good Law Project mobilized more than 50,000 people to contact local NHS boards urging them to withhold data from the platform.

Its legal action also led to the publication of unredacted contracts showing that NHS England signed the agreement before legally binding data protection clauses were finalized.

NHS England later apologized after acknowledging that Palantir engineers had accessed identifiable patient records, prompting more than 44,000 people to file formal objections under data protection law. Some NHS trusts have also resisted adopting the software.

A report by technology watchdog Foxglove found that one-third of NHS trusts using Palantir's tools recorded fewer surgical operations after implementation. The group accused the government of relying on "cherry-picked" statistics to justify the expenditure.

Palantir's £240 million contracts with the Defense Ministry and a dispute over a proposed £50 million Metropolitan Police deal have intensified scrutiny.

Palantir sued the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime in June after London Mayor Sadiq Khan intervened to block a proposed two-year contract for the Metropolitan Police to use AI to process intelligence in criminal investigations.

Khan's intervention followed concerns about Palantir's work with the Israeli military and the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

The mayor previously said Londoners wanted public money to go to companies that "share the values of our city." Earlier this month, the parties withdrew their allegations against each other, averting a High Court trial scheduled for January. The proposed contract remains blocked.

In a joint statement Wednesday, the parties said the May 2026 decision to block the contract "was not based on Palantir's values or ethics or any wider reporting about the company." The agreement came a month after Palantir hired former Labour Party deputy leader Tom Watson as a full-time lobbyist.

Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and lawmaker Rachael Maskell were among MPs who criticized Palantir after receiving letters documenting their parliamentary statements about the company's surveillance activities.

The lawmakers described the letters as "intimidation," while Palantir said it was seeking to "set the record straight" against false claims.

Addressing public anxiety over state surveillance and foreign corporate control, Lamb urged critics to abandon what he considered a hypocritical stance on privacy.

“Look at how much civil liberty you give up by using the device you're using to talk to me right now. You just hit 'accept', and you give away a huge amount of your civil liberties because, well, you need your phone,” he said.

Rights groups and some lawmakers have questioned whether a US “spy-tech” company with extensive defense, intelligence and immigration enforcement ties should have such a prominent role in British public infrastructure.

Former MI5 chief Jonathan Evans, however, rejected the suggestion that US technology companies themselves posed a direct national security threat.

“I wouldn’t say that US tech companies are a threat to the UK government,” he told Anadolu. “I think there are challenges around ensuring that information is used appropriately. There are issues relating to sovereignty and so on, and these are still works in progress.”Lamb compared opposition to Palantir with Britain's historical debates over nuclear energy, arguing that political concerns can obscure the benefits of technology.

“It's a bit like what happened here in the 1970s, when we had an argument about nuclear weapons and nuclear power. We conflated the two, and as a result, we ended up with neither,” Lamb said.

“This country could have been running on nuclear power without any trouble at all, and nobody would have had to worry about being cold at Christmas,” he added.

While acknowledging that some technologies could compromise civil liberties, Lamb urged policymakers to assess their practical value rather than reject them on principle.

"My view is this: step back, take an objective view, and don't allow emotion to cloud your judgement. Look at the technological capabilities available and decide which ones you want to use," he said. "Palantir will absolutely be one of them." But concerns about Britain's reliance on the company persist.

In June, a parliamentary committee described the country's operational dependence on Palantir as an "unacceptable weakness."

"The current position leaves us seriously exposed," committee chair Chi Onwurah said. "The UK can and should be aiming for technology sovereignty in critical parts of our public sector and supporting domestic alternatives through smarter procurement." Multiple UK parliamentary committees and digital rights groups are actively pressuring the Labour government to exercise a February 2027 contract break clause to terminate or heavily scale back Palantir’s presence in the UK public sector.