In recent developments, significant questions have arisen regarding the UK’s procurement process for contracts with US technology companies, particularly concerning Palantir Technologies and OpenAI. These inquiries follow revelations about Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm, Global Counsel, which has worked with both firms, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and transparency in governmental dealings.
Lobbying Firm’s Influence Scrutinised
Peter Mandelson, co-founder of Global Counsel, has faced scrutiny after it was revealed that his firm represented OpenAI prior to its signing of a substantial agreement with the British government. This partnership aims to explore the potential applications of artificial intelligence across various sectors, including justice and education. In 2024, OpenAI, valued at $500 billion, engaged Global Counsel as a client. Shortly after, in 2025, the company entered a memorandum of understanding with the UK government to enhance public engagement with AI technologies.
The relationship has sparked debate over whether Mandelson’s connections could have facilitated OpenAI’s agreements with the government, particularly during his term as ambassador to the United States.
Palantir’s Growing Contracts
In addition to OpenAI, Global Counsel has also represented Palantir Technologies, a US defence technology firm that has secured over £500 million in contracts with the UK’s National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence. Notably, the Ministry of Defence recently awarded Palantir a £241 million military contract without an open tender process, further intensifying scrutiny around the decision-making involved.
Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at tech fairness organisation Foxglove, expressed concerns regarding the growing list of US companies linked to Mandelson and their dealings with the UK government. He stated, “Questions are rightly being asked about whether Mandelson could have greased the wheels for Palantir, a client of the lobbying firm he founded.”
Government Response to Allegations
As pressure mounts, Members of Parliament are calling for greater transparency regarding the circumstances that led to the awarding of the Palantir contract. This includes inquiries about a meeting involving Keir Starmer, Mandelson, and Palantir’s CEO, held at the firm’s Washington DC office prior to the contract’s approval. Defence Minister Luke Pollard has asserted that the procurement process was justified and denied any influence from Mandelson, stating that the decision was made solely by Defence Secretary John Healey.
Labour MP Clive Lewis has labelled the deal as “stinking” and accused the government of deliberately obscuring details related to the decision-making process. Additionally, Liberal Democrats have urged the government to clarify the extent of Mandelson’s involvement in securing the contract.
Need for Transparency and Accountability
In light of these events, MPs are demanding that the government provide comprehensive details regarding the Palantir contract. Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge has raised questions about the lack of official records documenting the meeting between Starmer and Mandelson, and whether Starmer was aware of Palantir’s ties to Mandelson’s firm at the time. Pollard has committed to publishing relevant materials as soon as possible.
OpenAI has stated that its agreements with the UK government were managed independently by its London team, denying any reliance on Global Counsel for government connections.
Why it Matters
The unfolding situation highlights critical issues surrounding transparency, accountability, and potential conflicts of interest in public procurement processes. As the UK government increasingly collaborates with major technology firms, it is essential to ensure that these partnerships are conducted with integrity and serve the public interest. The scrutiny of lobbying practices and government contracts may ultimately shape the future landscape of tech governance in the UK, influencing public trust in both private sector partnerships and government decision-making.
