Key content

New York City's public hospital system, NYC Health + Hospitals, has decided not to renew its contract with military contractor Palantir. According to related reports, Mitchell Katz, CEO of the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, announced at a New York City Council meeting on March 16 that the company will end its cooperation with Palantir after the contract expires in October.

The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation has been using data analysis services by paying about $4 million (about 5.4 billion won) to Palantir since 2023. The software was used to increase the efficiency of claims for Medicaid and other public benefits and included automatic scanning of patient health records.

Why this is important

This decision is expected to go beyond simply terminating the contract and become a watershed moment in social debate about the boundaries between public health data and military and surveillance technology companies.

Palantir is a company known for its close cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies and the military. The company's technology has been used for targeting lethal airstrikes, widespread surveillance of U.S. citizens, and enforcement operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Because of this background, civic groups have strongly opposed public hospitals entrusting citizens' sensitive health information to these companies.

Katz explained that there is an "absolute firewall" between patient data and government customers like ICE, making it impossible to share information. “No problems have arisen,” he said, but “we will terminate the contract anyway because it was intended from the beginning to be a short-term solution.”

When did this trend start?

Concerns about data collaboration between Palantir and public institutions have long been raised. In the early 2010s, Palantir emerged as a key contractor for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense. Afterwards, as cooperation with ICE became known, it began to receive intensive criticism from immigration rights groups.

In the 2020s, the COVID-19 pandemic expanded its business into the public health field. He entered the medical data market in earnest while taking charge of pandemic response data analysis in the US and UK. However, during this process, ethical issues regarding access to sensitive health information by companies specializing in citizen surveillance and military technology continued to be raised.

The New York City case became public through related media reports in February 2025, and protests by civic groups continued thereafter. Groups such as the American Friends Service Committee have argued that Palantir is a corporation that profits from enabling large-scale violence in the United States and around the world, and that they should have no place in our hospitals, pension funds or government.

Future outlook [AI analysis]

This decision is likely to be the starting point of institutional pressure on Palantir. The news that a public institution in New York, the largest city in the United States, is breaking up with Palantir is expected to have an impact on other regions and institutions.

Civic groups plan to expand their campaign based on this victory. “Our campaign against Palantir does not stop in New York,” said Kenny Morris, an activist with the Friends of America Service. “We will continue to work to isolate this company and limit its destructive influence.”

Meanwhile, the decision to internalize data analysis services reflects the trend of technological independence among public institutions. As anxiety about entrusting sensitive citizen data to external companies grows, it is expected that more organizations will choose to build their own capabilities. However, there is a possibility that issues of technology and cost may emerge as new challenges in this process.

Ultimately, this incident raises fundamental questions about the concept of ‘technology neutrality’. If a specific company's technology has been used for an ethically controversial purpose, it is time to reach a social consensus on whether it is okay to use that technology in other fields.